Revisiting 35mm Film Scanners

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently started using an Epson V850 Pro to scan in 135 color negatives.  The scanner and associated software seem fine to me, I've never scanned with anything else though.  The only compliant I have is that it takes a long time, about an hour for a roll (36) but this as at second to highest resolution setting.  I may end up purchasing this set up myself so that I can do the scanning at home b/c of how long it takes. 

 

If you had a real darkroom would you make an 8x10 of every single negative on the roll? So why are you doing the equivalent in scanning? In a darkroom you would make a contact sheet and chose a good picture to enlarge, in scanning you make a digital contact sheet of low resolution thumbnails and chose a good image to scan at high resolution. It should take no more than 15 minutes to make a digital contact sheet, and given an average hit rate of two pictures per roll for somebody who is critical of their own work, and ten minutes for each high resolution scan, that's 35 minutes to get all you usually need from a roll of film. You can then sit back and post process to your hearts content, and again just like the darkroom this is the time consuming part, you have your good image and it can then take a long session of trial and error to reveal the best qualities of it.

 

 

Steve

[rpavich]

...

The 35mm scanners will give you a file at a much higher resolution and Mb size than a normal lab scan or from certain 'fast' drug store scanners that are now coming onto the second hand market. Be in no doubt, the latest dedicated 35mm Plustek's are the best you can get in new scanners.

 

 

Steve

Steve is referring to my favorite scanner; the Pakon. It not only yields some great looking results, it's very fast. It will scan a roll of 35mm negs in about 5 minutes or less.

 

The file size is small but that's not necessarily a negative in my book. I've had some very large prints done from its scans and they looked great.

 

There are two versions: the "non-plus"and the "plus"version. The plus is a bit faster but both do the same job equally well. The non-plus sells for about $300.00 on eBay, sometimes less, sometimes more.

 

And contrary to what Steve has said, the Pakon isn't just for idiots who want instant gratification and don't know what a good scan looks like.

 

I've also owned a plustek and thought it did a fine job.

 

Here is Matt Day talking about his:

 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by rpavich

[Advertisement]

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

[plasticman]

Incidentally, if anyone is tempted by a Hasselblad scanner (and who wouldn't like one?), Hasselblad (at least in the UK) have a promotion this month: new X1 for £6,200 (ex VAT). That's a substantial discount and means the X1 is not that far off the new price of a high end 35mm digital body.

 

I know this is beyond hope, but it feels like if Imacon/Hasselblad (whoever actually makes these?) could edge the price down one more notch (to around £5000 incl VAT*) they would sell a boatload. I guess they actually don't want to.

 

*ok - that would be more like two notches 

[Mijo]

If you had a real darkroom would you make an 8x10 of every single negative on the roll? So why are you doing the equivalent in scanning? In a darkroom you would make a contact sheet and chose a good picture to enlarge, in scanning you make a digital contact sheet of low resolution thumbnails and chose a good image to scan at high resolution. It should take no more than 15 minutes to make a digital contact sheet, and given an average hit rate of two pictures per roll for somebody who is critical of their own work, and ten minutes for each high resolution scan, that's 35 minutes to get all you usually need from a roll of film. You can then sit back and post process to your hearts content, and again just like the darkroom this is the time consuming part, you have your good image and it can then take a long session of trial and error to reveal the best qualities of it.

 

 

Steve

 

I actually do have a real darkroom (for B&W only).  Just b/c it takes 30 minutes to scan 18 frames does not mean you have to sit there and wait, I run test strips for B&W prints I'm working on and then change out the color negatives on the scanner when it's time.  I'd rather scan in the whole roll and then go back and delete the non keepers later.  I prefer to make my decision as to whether an image is a keeper based on a full scan rather than a thumbnail or a contact sheet.  Like you said you aren't going to make a traditional 8x10 print of every frame on a roll, but if it only takes you 25 minutes more to get a full scan (of the entire roll) why wouldn't you?  Would you rather look at an 8x10 image and decide if it's a keeper or use a thumbnail or contact sheet?  My post was intended to give the OP an idea of how long it would take to scan in 36 frames on a specific scanner at a specific setting, not to dictate how they should develop their work flow (that's up for the OP to decide). 

[philipus]

I think they sell them for this because they can. There's a lot of cachet built up in the Imacon brand.

 

But one thought that has occured to me is why Imacon isn't also selling a "beginners" model for say 3-4k. The technology they use is tried and tested over many years, investments made have been paid off etc etc, so surely it should be possible to make a less expensive model? There are definitely many cash-heavy film users out there who would be willing to pay premium money for a real high-end scanner at twice the price of an Opticfilm 120.

 

 

I know this is beyond hope, but it feels like if Imacon/Hasselblad (whoever actually makes these?) could edge the price down one more notch (to around £5000 incl VAT*) they would sell a boatload. I guess they actually don't want to.

 

*ok - that would be more like two notches 

[plasticman]

But one thought that has occured to me is why Imacon isn't also selling a "beginners" model for say 3-4k. The technology they use is tried and tested over many years, investments made have been paid off etc etc, so surely it should be possible to make a less expensive model? There are definitely many cash-heavy film users out there who would be willing to pay premium money for a real high-end scanner at twice the price of an Opticfilm 120.

 

Let's start an email campaign. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by plasticman

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understand the majority of Imacon sales are to institutions, libraries, museums etc and commercial scanning operations both of which are less price sensitive than the amateur market.

[wattsy]

I know this is beyond hope, but it feels like if Imacon/Hasselblad (whoever actually makes these?) could edge the price down one more notch (to around £5000 incl VAT*) they would sell a boatload. I guess they actually don't want to.

 

*ok - that would be more like two notches 

 

 

I understand the majority of Imacon sales are to institutions, libraries, museums etc and commercial scanning operations both of which are less price sensitive than the amateur market.

 

Yes, and being slightly higher maintenance than the average desktop scanner (requiring periodic service, etc.), I'm not sure that Hasselblad would necessarily want to sell a "boatload" of the X1 so £6,200 may well be the best deal we are likely to see. That said, it is reasonable to assume that Hasselblad haven't been selling enough of these scanners at the non-promotional price (otherwise, why have the promotion?) so who knows what may happen.

 

Incidentally, there are also some very good deals to be had at the moment on Hasselblad H series DSLR kits and the V series digital back (£6995 inc. VAT) if that's your thing,

[plasticman]

Yes, and being slightly higher maintenance than the average desktop scanner (requiring periodic service, etc.), I'm not sure that Hasselblad would necessarily want to sell a "boatload" of the X1 so £6,200 may well be the best deal we are likely to see. That said, it is reasonable to assume that Hasselblad haven't been selling enough of these scanners at the non-promotional price (otherwise, why have the promotion?) so who knows what may happen.

 

Indeed, I noticed there was a similar promotion last year (I think it required that you exchanged 'any' scanner, if I recall correctly), so there's evidently a market-driven desire to sell at least a few more units (just not too many).

 

The ideal solution (for customers) would be what Philip suggests: some sort of 'prosumer'-grade unit that would fill the enormous gap left by the discontinuation of the Coolscans and all the other dedicated film-scanners that were once in use at bureaus and other imaging companies.

I seriously believe there's a market for it - scanner choice seems to be the biggest hurdle for enthusiasts coming to film, judging by the recurrent threads discussing the problem on film-related forums.

 

But I guess Imacon/Hasselblad have (probably) looked at the options and decided it wouldn't be worth it - although I'm not sure, as they don't seem to have their finger on any particular market pulse these days.

 

Like I half-jokingly suggested above, maybe we ought to write a few mails...

[250swb]

I actually do have a real darkroom (for B&W only).  Just b/c it takes 30 minutes to scan 18 frames does not mean you have to sit there and wait, I run test strips for B&W prints I'm working on and then change out the color negatives on the scanner when it's time.  I'd rather scan in the whole roll and then go back and delete the non keepers later.  I prefer to make my decision as to whether an image is a keeper based on a full scan rather than a thumbnail or a contact sheet.  Like you said you aren't going to make a traditional 8x10 print of every frame on a roll, but if it only takes you 25 minutes more to get a full scan (of the entire roll) why wouldn't you?  Would you rather look at an 8x10 image and decide if it's a keeper or use a thumbnail or contact sheet?  My post was intended to give the OP an idea of how long it would take to scan in 36 frames on a specific scanner at a specific setting, not to dictate how they should develop their work flow (that's up for the OP to decide). 

 

Make your mind up, you started out complaining about the time scanning took. If you want to reply to my post do it within the context of what I was replying to instead of changing the subject. But while on your new subject........

 

Contact sheets in film photography (and all those pictures that clog up memory cards) are there to educate the photographer. Look at them again later (much later sometimes) and it is possible to see things that weren't apparent in the first excitement of developing the film. Possibly images that were simply overlooked, a style that wasn't as interesting then as it is now, something in the image that becomes topical. There are many variations, but deleting images whether with film scans or digital means they are generally speaking forgotten for ever (completely dead images with digital). Not many people used to sending digital files to the recycle bin are going to go back and re-scan a roll of film, so as in another thread the negatives may just as well be thrown away. So you don't learn, you don't review, you don't have a context for your work, everything either side of your favourite image on the roll becomes a void. That is really bad, and it's also deleting failures so no lessons are learned from them. Come back with a roll of failure as we all do from time to time and it should be a reminder not to do it again, never mind automatically scanning each one as a large file in the hope of finding some redeeming feature. But there should be some easily accessible record kept.

 

And within the context of the above there are a lot of photographers, myself included, who remember the exact image they think will be the keeper on a roll. The contact sheet is simply to confirm the suspicion. And it is this image they were going to first whatever the rest of the images on the contact sheet contain. So the review of the sheet a day or years later overcomes the initial excitement and prejudice.

 

Steve

[philipus]

I've emailed the Hasselblad HQ so let's see what they say, if anything (info at hasselblad.com in case anyone wants to join in).

 

Let's start an email campaign. 

[philipus]

And I received a reply from the Hasselblad product manager Mr. Bronius Rudnickas. Translated from Swedish, he says:
 
"You are entirely correct that there is no "middle price scanner" in the film scanner market [i had said that there is a major gap between the Opticfilm 120, being the top consumer scanner today, and the X1, which is the next scanner (price-wise) in the market]. And we see the same thing as you have identified, that more and more people are beginning to use film again.

Bearing in mind the costs conntected with film and development, there is no interest in paying a high price for a scanner [here he misunderstood my point; I had said that there appears to be, in fact, an interest in buying higher-end scanners for a lot of money (but not as much as the price of an X1) because second-hand scanners, like the Coolscan 9000, regularly sell for 3000 Euro and up]. That for instance the Opticfilm 120 lacks AF is perhaps not so strange considering the price of the scanner. They have perhaps prioritised other functions instead of AF [i had made the point that, though the Opticfilm can deliver very good results, the lack of AF is a limitation to some].

With our current scanners we see that sales over time is rather stable and that our clients are predominantly professional photographers and image archives/museums. The numbers of sold scanners would probably increase if we could add a "middle range scanner". However the development necessary must pay for itself over a certain period of time and here we have a difficult equation. We must prioritise and invest resources where we believe that they will make the biggest impact and unfortunately that is today probably not scanners. It may be that we might re-prioritise in the future.
 
We will take your comments onboard for the future."
 

[plasticman]

I don't think Hasselblad have any clue where their business is heading, unfortunately. If I can summon the energy to knock my head against the same block, I'll also write a mail.

 

I have a feeling they'll miss this opportunity to actually make some money from the resurgent prosumer film crowd, and within five/ten years we will all be using sensor-shift digital cameras to make 250megapixel raw 'scans' of our negatives, and the whole scanner market will be dead.

[philipus]

I'm wondering if it would be an idea to a few make online "polls" in various photo fora (here, RFF, largeformatforum, LuLa, Fred Miranda, APUG, photo.net perhaps) to really check from a user-base level if there is any interest in an "X1 Light" at a 3000-4000 Eur price point.

 

I don't fully buy his comment about having to recoup costs of development because the technology must be well researched enough (but what do I know). The real reason is probably (my speculation) that Hasselblad is simply leaving any film-related sections of its business to languish like an ugly stepchild in a closet while all the beautiful digital creations are out and about getting all the attention.

[wattsy]

I don't fully buy his comment about having to recoup costs of development because the technology must be well researched enough (but what do I know). The real reason is probably (my speculation) that Hasselblad is simply leaving any film-related sections of its business to languish like an ugly stepchild in a closet while all the beautiful digital creations are out and about getting all the attention.

 

 

That might be the case but I get the impression that Hasselblad are in some financial trouble (and have been for some time) and would probably welcome some additional income. I'm not sure the digital creations are setting the world on fire at present so I doubt that the management would turn their noses up (like they might have done 5 years ago) at making some extra sales on the remaining film side of their business. However, to bring a new scanner to market would inevitably involve development costs (even simply designing and fabricating a new case to go around the existing X1 guts will involve costs) and the company may simply not be in a position to divert cash flow in that direction. Similarly, selling the existing X1 at an even lower price point would undoubtedly bring in additional buyers but, unless Hasselblad are in a position to ramp up production to match the new demand (again involving an investment in workers and plant), all that would achieve would be to lower the current profit margin without a net increase in turnover. It may be that the current promotional offer is the sweet spot whereby demand picks up sufficiently to match the maximum production output using the present manufacturing capacity (in Denmark?).

[250swb]

That for instance the Opticfilm 120 lacks AF is perhaps not so strange considering the price of the scanner. They have perhaps prioritised other functions instead of AF [i had made the point that, though the Opticfilm can deliver very good results, the lack of AF is a limitation to some].

 

 

 

 

AF is a red herring, and the other big mistake you are making is equating the price of the scanner with the results from the scanner. And it is a common mistake, it's what maintains the price differential between a second hand Nikon 9000 and a brand new Plustek 120. And unless the photographer is going to be making room sized prints the visual difference between a scan from a drum scanner and the Plustek 120 is irrelevant, as it was with the Nikon 9000. Throwing even more money at the 'problem' no longer makes any sort of sense unless working in a rarefied field. 

 

Steve

[philipus]

Thanks for chiming in with this interesting thought. If we accept your suggestion, however, I am wondering if we wouldn't also have to say that all digital photographers in this forum should not have spent thousands of Euros on digital M bodies to be used to take pictures of commonplace things like family, flowers and trees which are printed at considerably more modest sizes or even just put on the internet. Seems like a stupid thing to do when there is the Digilux 2, current-day Pana-Leicas or even iPhones.

 

Evidently, depending on one's needs and desires quality-wise, one can get by with any scanner (camera, car, watch etc).

 

The point I made was only that there is a market for a scanner that gives better results than the Opticfilm 120 but cost less than the X1. 

 

 

 

 

AF is a red herring, and the other big mistake you are making is equating the price of the scanner with the results from the scanner. And it is a common mistake, it's what maintains the price differential between a second hand Nikon 9000 and a brand new Plustek 120. And unless the photographer is going to be making room sized prints the visual difference between a scan from a drum scanner and the Plustek 120 is irrelevant, as it was with the Nikon 9000. Throwing even more money at the 'problem' no longer makes any sort of sense unless working in a rarefied field. 

 

Steve

[stephen.w]

Thanks for chiming in with this interesting thought. If we accept your suggestion, however, I am wondering if we wouldn't also have to say that all digital photographers in this forum should not have spent thousands of Euros on digital M bodies to be used to take pictures of commonplace things like family, flowers and trees which are printed at considerably more modest sizes or even just put on the internet. Seems like a stupid thing to do when there is the Digilux 2, current-day Pana-Leicas or even iPhones.

 

Evidently, depending on one's needs and desires quality-wise, one can get by with any scanner (camera, car, watch etc).

 

The point I made was only that there is a market for a scanner that gives better results than the Opticfilm 120 but cost less than the X1. 

 

 

 

 

I think that Steve's point was just that in terms of scans of a 35mm negative, upwards of the Plustek scanners we are in the realm of diminishing returns: The size of the negative is a hard-built limitation, unlike in the case of sensors in digital cameras.

[Mijo]

Make your mind up, you started out complaining about the time scanning took. If you want to reply to my post do it within the context of what I was replying to instead of changing the subject. But while on your new subject........

 

Contact sheets in film photography (and all those pictures that clog up memory cards) are there to educate the photographer. Look at them again later (much later sometimes) and it is possible to see things that weren't apparent in the first excitement of developing the film. Possibly images that were simply overlooked, a style that wasn't as interesting then as it is now, something in the image that becomes topical. There are many variations, but deleting images whether with film scans or digital means they are generally speaking forgotten for ever (completely dead images with digital). Not many people used to sending digital files to the recycle bin are going to go back and re-scan a roll of film, so as in another thread the negatives may just as well be thrown away. So you don't learn, you don't review, you don't have a context for your work, everything either side of your favourite image on the roll becomes a void. That is really bad, and it's also deleting failures so no lessons are learned from them. Come back with a roll of failure as we all do from time to time and it should be a reminder not to do it again, never mind automatically scanning each one as a large file in the hope of finding some redeeming feature. But there should be some easily accessible record kept.

 

And within the context of the above there are a lot of photographers, myself included, who remember the exact image they think will be the keeper on a roll. The contact sheet is simply to confirm the suspicion. And it is this image they were going to first whatever the rest of the images on the contact sheet contain. So the review of the sheet a day or years later overcomes the initial excitement and prejudice.

 

Steve

 

I have made up my mind and I stand by my statement that scanning takes a long time, and I've given the OP what it takes me to scan in a roll on a specific scanner at a specific setting (they can decide if that time is too long for them).  I would almost rather pay a lab for the high res scans than do it myself, which I have done before when there's more than 3 rolls that need scanning.  I also don't need a lecture on the value of contact sheets, I have shelves full of my own and books dedicated to just contact sheets from pros (so that I can study their process).  Read my post, I never said anything about not printing a contact sheet for scanned rolls, I simply stated that when reviewing images to determine keepers I'd prefer to review a full scan.  I in fact due print a contact sheet for quick reference.  If you advocate making your decisions on which frames to scan based on just the contact sheet that's fine, but I don't appreciate your critique on my workflow.  

 

Scanning takes time, there's no way around that fact.  It's up to each person to determine if the time spent scanning negatives themselves is worth it or not. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tatetate]

If you are not worried about speed and PP time involved, Plustek 8200i is best bet with silverfast which has a learning curve but yes its worth every penny.

 

If you want Kodak Colours and Speed With Amazing results in almost no time, Pakon 135+ is way to go!

 

If you prefer Fuji Tone and want a tank like a strong machine, You can go for Fuji Frontier SP500 or if cost is no issue SP 3000. SP500 Can scan entire roll in 5-7ish mins with 5xxxish x 36xx resolution which is Excellent for 12x18 Print size.

 

Hope that helps.