Need good scanning soluiton

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What size of print are you scanning for? Wall size? :-)

 

I know NYC's lab are quite expensive (I lived there for years) and Denver's lab (where I currently live) are possibly more affordable. Though, I recently paid $60 or $80 for a drum scan of a 4x5 sheet (ok, different from 6x6) for a 60x30 inches print ... I don't disagree on the quality of flatbed scanners. However, I can see a difference in sharpness and quality of a 16x20 inches print when comparing a print done from a drum scanned 4x5 E6 slide and one done from a Epson 750 scanned 4x5 E6 slide... just another reference point. 

 

cheers 

 

I asked for the max res for their drum; so, yes, on a 6x6 it probably was fairly large, although nothing to be seen from the side of a road.  My only point is that we all want to get the most out of our best negatives and slides, and a good consumer scanner will do thing infinitely more cost effectively than through a lab.

[LorenzoLandini]

I agree. One of the points in my commentary posted above was indeed how a flatbed scanner is more than enough for the fruition of the images on a screen, website and good size prints. I do that with all my images, it is better quality than a low/standard resolution scan provided by a lab and more cost effective than a drum scan. If there is one image that will be printed in a large size, then I drum scan that image and generally the cost of the drum scan is not prohibitive within the context of the overall cost of printing, mounting and framing. cheers. 

[250swb]

Adam makes a very good point about the relative quality between drum scanners and a good consumer scanner. Both would still need some post processing input and after some well applied sharpening you would be hard pressed to differentiate between them at a 'normal' print size. In fact much of the information from a large file only becomes useful at very, very large print sizes, and even from a drum scanner it doesn't necessarily translate into resolution/sharpness because for that you still need the perfect technique in taking the shot (tripod, lens, best aperture, film type, etc.) which in reality rarely all come together at the same time.

 

The main point about a good consumer scanner is that the resulting images do look how you would expect them to look, I know, it seems like stating the obvious. With good scanning technique they do make an image that looks like a film image. Poor technique, and/or a low quality scanner and the information you are working with is reduced, the potential of the image isn't captured. In this case using film primarily becomes symbolic, it ticks the hipster box, it re-connects people with the warm glow of their mothers and fathers generation, it keeps film sales healthy, but it isn't exploiting the full possibilities of film and scanning.

[indergaard]

If you want the best home scanner for 35mm and 120mm with batch scanning support and professional and technical high-quality results: Plustek OpticFilm 120

If you want the most convenient scanner for posting pix online and printing very small: Pakon F135+

​Flatbeds might seem convenient, but IMO they're more work than they're worth. And they take a lot of space.

[EoinC]

If you want the best home scanner for 35mm and 120mm with batch scanning support and professional and technical high-quality results: Plustek OpticFilm 120

If you want the most convenient scanner for posting pix online and printing very small: Pakon F135+

 

​Flatbeds might seem convenient, but IMO they're more work than they're worth. And they take a lot of space.

I agree, Borge, except that flatbeds offer a cost-efficient alternative to the Plustek OpticFilm 120 for scanning larger formats than 135. If scanning only 135, the Plustek 8100/8200 is a very good scanner at a good price.

[indergaard]

I agree, Borge, except that flatbeds offer a cost-efficient alternative to the Plustek OpticFilm 120 for scanning larger formats than 135. If scanning only 135, the Plustek 8100/8200 is a very good scanner at a good price.

 

Yes I agree.

​A plustek 8100/8200 + a light table and loupe is the best, cheapest and most compact solution.

Since they don't do batch scanning you have to cull and decide in advance, which is actually nice when you get used to it, rather than scanning everything and then doing the culling.

[Mguy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you want the best home scanner for 35mm and 120mm with batch scanning support and professional and technical high-quality results: Plustek OpticFilm 120

If you want the most convenient scanner for posting pix online and printing very small: Pakon F135+

 

​Flatbeds might seem convenient, but IMO they're more work than they're worth. And they take a lot of space.

 

Hmmmmm. Really? I would think Imacon/Hasselblad would be in that conversation.

[wattsy]

Hmmmmm. Really? I would think Imacon/Hasselblad would be in that conversation.

 

 

I guess that depends whether you consider a scanner that, new, costs more than a small family car, is an obvious choice for a "home scanner".