Jump to content

Plustek Scanners and SilverFast 8 Software


Martin B

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks again everybody.  Hard to say for sure, but the overall results from Martin's last example is more along the lines of what I had come to expect from the Nikon (color aside...)  I'll play around a bit with it, maybe trying shimming or investigating something else to see if I can improve on the results.  I'll let you know if I come up with something.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed!  That really is a big difference.   It's a shame though as I hate to have to unmounts the slides just to scan them.

 

And it looks to be mount dependent.  I found a test slide in the kit that came with the scanner...

 

It scanned infinitely better than what I get with my own mounted slides.  I'll try to post it once I figure out how to upload to the forum here...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed!  That really is a big difference.   It's a shame though as I hate to have to unmounts the slides just to scan them.

 

And it looks to be mount dependent.  I found a test slide in the kit that came with the scanner...

 

It scanned infinitely better than what I get with my own mounted slides.  I'll try to post it once I figure out how to upload to the forum here...

 

Interesting - mine didn't come with a test slide. Didn't know that different slide mounts existed! The mount used for my slide film definitely is not good to be used with this slide holder. To unmount each slide photo from its frame would be very tedious and inconvenient. Maybe worthwhile to inquire Plustek directly about this? They should already be aware of this.....maybe they have differently sized or thick slide holders? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, now I did the scientific comparison following Chris' advice above and unmounted the slide from its frame and used the negative holder instead under the exact same scan conditions as shown earlier. What a difference in sharpness! This is the key indeed!

 

 

 

I am delighted that has done the trick. It is very clear on my flatbed V850 that any buckle in 120 film is immediately obvious in the variable quality across the image area. My 8100 has been consistently good on strips but as I said I never tried slides, my slides were 120 on the V850 and scanned beautifully. Film flatness is paramount for getting a good scan I think the reason, partially, the Imacon/Hasselblads are so good is because of the flatness of the film when scanned.

 

The difference is obvious of course but look at the "hair" top RHS and how sharp it is on the secondscan, I often find it easier to judge focus and sharpness on a defect not withstanding that many of my images would qualify on their own  :rolleyes:

Edited by chris_livsey
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have just tried several more slides.  The ones that scan best are my Dad's old Kodachrome slides that he took in Korea in 1952.  Very good detail.  My more recent slides are mounted in cardboard that just isn't as beefy.  I think that the flimsy mounts are what does this machine in.  For whatever reason, I didn't notice this with my Nikon scanner.  I'm not certain, but I think that I remember Nikon making a to-do over the autofocus on that scanner, so maybe that's part of it. 

 

Another thing that I found is that I get slightly better results with the slide-holder upside down.  That is, with the slides being held underneath of the mount rather than on top of the mount.  You have to flip the slides of course relative to the mount to keep the emulsion side the right way. 

 

One last note....  Silverfast, with this scanner at least, is horrible with colors from Kodachrome, but that's fine.  I'm used to sorting that out in Photoshop.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I have just tried several more slides.  The ones that scan best are my Dad's old Kodachrome slides that he took in Korea in 1952.  Very good detail.  My more recent slides are mounted in cardboard that just isn't as beefy.  I think that the flimsy mounts are what does this machine in.  For whatever reason, I didn't notice this with my Nikon scanner.  I'm not certain, but I think that I remember Nikon making a to-do over the autofocus on that scanner, so maybe that's part of it. 

 

Another thing that I found is that I get slightly better results with the slide-holder upside down.  That is, with the slides being held underneath of the mount rather than on top of the mount.  You have to flip the slides of course relative to the mount to keep the emulsion side the right way. 

 

One last note....  Silverfast, with this scanner at least, is horrible with colors from Kodachrome, but that's fine.  I'm used to sorting that out in Photoshop.

 

I can also confirm this observation - using the slide holder upside down increases a bit the sharpness but does not provide the same crisp sharpness as without the frame inside the negative holder. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally found the calibration slide in my package! I added it into my slide holder, and I got a sharp scan with it. But I also saw that this slide had a thicker frame than the others of my film - the calibration slide was sitting much better (more straight from the side view) in this slide holder. The thickness of the slide frame definitely affects the results severely. 

 

p2156236887-5.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I really like is the NegaFix control menu in SilverFast 8.8 when scanning color negatives. The white balance adjustment according to the selected film is excellent and does not require a lot or even any color adjustment of the photo in post processing. I scanned some old color negatives of mine from 2004 yesterday where I always struggled in the past to get the color balance right in manual post processing. Now with NegaFix the colors came out as original as possible and similar to the photo prints when the film was developed. For the scan I only had to slightly adjust the exposure setting and the gradation curve setting - I did not use any further color control setting within the software. Very happy with the results!

 

p2159540975-5.jpg

 

p2159540977-5.jpg

 

p2159541096-5.jpg

 

p2159541368-5.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I'm hovering somewhere between ordering a Plustek 8200x (SE or possibly with Ai SF s/w) or an Epson V-800 or V-850.

 

The V-850 in particular seems to suffer from dust, made worse by the ANR 'glass' covering the neg holders (glass being Epson's description, but more likely to be plastic, from what I've read), with many users switching to the V-700 film holders. I've also read it's not uncommon for dust or plastic out-gassing products to coat the underside of the glass platter requiring a service return or a DIY job at cleaning.

 

How does the Plustek hold up, is it more or less prone to dust compared to a flatbed? I see a potential problem with a strip of 6 negatives in the carrier waiting their turn to enter the scanner; by design some of the negs will will be in 'fresh' air with the potential to pick up further dust. So what's the work flow? Dust the negs having loaded the carrier, then again each time a negative or slide is about to enter the enclosure? And what about dust getting into the scanner mechanism itself. Is the CCD array enclosed (in a similar manner to a flatbed scanner), or in fresh air (within the metal case). Either way there's potential for dust issues, and like a digital camera the owner/user needs options for cleaning other than returning for service.

Edited by Steve Ricoh
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hovering somewhere between ordering a Plustek 8200x (SE or possibly with Ai SF s/w) or an Epson V-800 or V-850.

 

The V-850 in particular seems to suffer from dust, made worse by the ANR 'glass' covering the neg holders (glass being Epson's description, but more likely to be plastic, from what I've read), with many users switching to the V-700 film holders. I've also read it's not uncommon for dust or plastic out-gassing products to coat the underside of the glass platter requiring a service return or a DIY job at cleaning.

 

How does the Plustek hold up, is it more or less prone to dust compared to a flatbed? I see a potential problem with a strip of 6 negatives in the carrier waiting their turn to enter the scanner; by design some of the negs will will be in 'fresh' air with the potential to pick up further dust. So what's the work flow? Dust the negs having loaded the carrier, then again each time a negative or slide is about to enter the enclosure? And what about dust getting into the scanner mechanism itself. Is the CCD array enclosed (in a similar manner to a flatbed scanner), or in fresh air (within the metal case). Either way there's potential for dust issues, and like a digital camera the owner/user needs options for cleaning other than returning for service.

 

Steve, I would now decide to go with a Vuescan V-850 since I have also started to do large format photography, and this Vuescan can be nicely used for larger negative formats. It was something I didn't even consider doing when I purchased my Plustek scanner, but shortly afterwards I got an irresistible deal for a full darkroom set with Swiss Alpina 4x5" camera. I might get the Vuescan as alternative option in the future, too. 

 

I have used my Plustek quite intensively since for all my new 35 mm negatives, and I have zero dust issues so far with it. But I always put it back in its storage bag which protects it additionally from dust. I normally clean the strip of negatives just once before I insert the whole film strip with the negative holder into the scanner for scanning. I found that best is to use a rocket blower on both sides after the film strip is inserted into the holder. This removes 90% of the dust on the negatives. I never had an issue that dust can potentially settle on exposed negatives in the holder - but I always scan them one-by-one and don't keep them sitting there for hours. 

 

The Plustek has some flaps on both side where the film holder is inserted which flip up when the holder is inserted. This protects the inside scan unit from dust quite well. I don't know how the scanner unit inside the scanner is built - if open or enclosed. 

Edited by Martin B
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Martin

Photography is only a hobby for me, like for many, but if funds allowed I would probably get one of each, a Plustek and an Epson V-800. Not sure the V-850 is worth the extra money, a lot of people complain about the negative carriers; the problem being 'plastic' ANR attracts dust due to static nature of the material. Many switch to the V-700 plates with success.

Pictures of the Plustek internals shows nothing but 'fresh' air between the slide carrier and the scanner, so if push came to shove it should be fairly easy to blast some air to clean things up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have come to this thread from another comparing Silverfast 8 with Vuescan. I bought the cheaper Plustek 7400 Opticflim scanner. I wanted something better than my Epson V700. I was told, maybe incorrectly, that the hardware of all the Plustek scanners was the same and the only difference was the software. I upgraded quite expensively to Silverfast 8 for Plustek. I think I may have totally wasted my money. The output from the 7400 on a Mac is quite poor. After some discussion with Plustek, it would appear that the scanner is only really designed to work with Windows and the Mac driver is a bit of an afterthought. It has basic errors in it like outputting a mirror image as its default. OK easy to correct but indicative of sloppy coding of the USB driver (Plustek admitted that it did this). I think the colours are poor both from Silverfast and to a very slightly lesser extent Vuescan. I did calibrate with an IT8 target but admittedly a rather old slide on Ektachrome. What is disappointing is there seems to be no focus ability in the scanner, like my old and very dead Polaroid Artixscan 4000 had. Looking at my negatives on my lightbox with a loupe, they look totally sharp. Out of the Plustek, they are noticeably softer. I think I will just put it on eBay and go back to the V700. I might get some better film holders like the ANR glass http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html.

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all,

 

What is your thoughs on Plustek Optiscan 135? Or should I go with 8200 series? Im going to scan only 35mm films on a personal level. Also how is the Mac support as I have read, Plustek has bad driver support.

 

Many thanks,

 

Fatih

 

See my post above yours. I think Plustek scanners are a lottery. Since they have no focus ability, the sharpness of the scanned image is wholly dependant on the film to scan sensor register. The mechanical bit of the scanner is somewhat crude and obviously made with price the main object rather than accuracy. My scans are just not very sharp and adding sharpening produces artefacts. I have ended up buying a Leica BEOON slide/film copying device, which I will use with my M240. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

See my post above yours. I think Plustek scanners are a lottery. Since they have no focus ability, the sharpness of the scanned image is wholly dependant on the film to scan sensor register. The mechanical bit of the scanner is somewhat crude and obviously made with price the main object rather than accuracy. My scans are just not very sharp and adding sharpening produces artefacts. I have ended up buying a Leica BEOON slide/film copying device, which I will use with my M240. 

 

Wilson

 

I have scanned now hundreds of negatives with my Plustek 8200Ai scanner, and as long as the film is sitting evenly in the negative holder, the sharpness of the final image is superb. It gets a bit tricky with wavy negatives - here I recommend using some tape strips in the negative carrier to even them out. But yes, I wish the scanner had a refocusing option which could be controlled with the software. Unfortunately this is currently not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have scanned now hundreds of negatives with my Plustek 8200Ai scanner, and as long as the film is sitting evenly in the negative holder, the sharpness of the final image is superb. It gets a bit tricky with wavy negatives - here I recommend using some tape strips in the negative carrier to even them out. But yes, I wish the scanner had a refocusing option which could be controlled with the software. Unfortunately this is currently not the case.

 

Martin, 

 

I have tried everything from jamming bits of Blu-Tak to taping. I just think my 7400 is at the bottom end of the tolerance limit and as a result, my scans will never be sharp. I was reading another website, where someone was comparing scans from an Epson V700, Plustek 8200, Nikon Coolscan 5000 and Hasselblad-Imacon, with crops of examples from each. The V700 and Plustek were noticeably softer than the Nikon or Hasselblad. Given the relative price differences and that the latter two have focus, this should come as no surprise. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one who has yet to scan film directly (I scan from wet darkroom prints), this thread is helpful, but still daunting. Call it old age or something.
 

 

One thing I struggle with is the archive mode of the negative - the only option to save the file in RAW as DNG.

 

That brings up a question to me. Intuition suggests that photographing a B&W negative (the only film I use) using a camera or scanner that saves as DNG, the results are, of course, a negative image. So far, so good. But when the image is to be digitally  processed, the default to 'invert' concerns me. Is the conversion simply a binary switch of values, and is anything compromised in the process? Does anyone manipulate the negative image before conversion?

 

I'm on the fence concerning scanning B&W negatives.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jac, 

 

A lot of folk use Silver Efex Pro plug in for their black and white processing in Photoshop. It is quite expensive. I find that levels and curves are good enough, together with the various tinting tools and filters. The conversion/inverting process as you assume, is a simple mathematical operation, where a white value of 255 becomes a white value of 1 (256-255) and so on. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...