Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital

[mikemgb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I've read about lab scans so may not bother and instead opt for prints until I sort DIY scanning. Thus I'm sorry to say the "Steve.. Ricoh.. Wales photo" may have to wait.

 

The ability to scan is somewhat of a deal breaker for me, but is it really the case that I need to spend as much on a scanner as I would to purchase a high spec FF camera to a produce a scan equivalent to a digital negative?

 

I've read quite a bit and it seems that flatbeds are challenged unless scanning for web or printing fairly small, no more than A4. Any larger and a dedicated 35mm scanner seems suited, but the downside is that they're painfully slow, eg maybe 2hrs scanning a roll of 36 using a Plustek. It's a great shame Nikon removed themselves from the scanner market in 2009/2010!

 

Attributes I'm considering:

Current production model, not 2nd hand from eBay (I want warranty and options to repair if necessary);

I want to purchase the right scanner for me first time, not having to sell and purchase again if I make a mistake;

Affordability, £ or $;

Quality of scan;

Dust management;

Dpi - real life, not the marketing hype - based on 360dpi for an acceptable print and on multiples of the 35mm negative;

2/ dMax (3.6 seems to be a a good aim);

3/ Speed - flatbed scanners are virtually unbeatable (apart from drum scanners) whereas dedicated 35mm scanners, such as the Plustek, are dreadfully slow.

 

I use an Epson V600 flatbed, I scan at 3200dpi. At that resolution I have printed posters 1 metre wide. A flatbed can produce very good results with a little work in Photoshop. Even without any further processing the scans are perfectly good for posting on the web - e.g. here.

[Go Figure]

probably has been mentioned before ... scan your negatives with the help of a Sony A7r or Fuji X trans sensor camera 

[Martin B]

Any larger and a dedicated 35mm scanner seems suited, but the downside is that they're painfully slow, eg maybe 2hrs scanning a roll of 36 using a Plustek.

Speed - flatbed scanners are virtually unbeatable (apart from drum scanners) whereas dedicated 35mm scanners, such as the Plustek, are dreadfully slow.

 

I am using the Plustek 8200Ai, and scans at 3200 dpi in B&W take normally about 1-2 minutes per negative to scan without any further dust/scratch removal options applied which would increase scan time. The quality of the scans is excellent, but compared to my alternative method to photograph the negative on a light table with my A7R and macro lens vertically tripod-mounted above it, the scanning takes longer but the final image does not need a lot of post processing afterwards. With a RAW file from my digital camera it takes a bit longer to get to the same result after post processing (level, curve, brightness/contrast adjustments). 

 

For larger negative sizes (medium and 4x5" format) the Epson flatbed scanners might be the better option from what I read. 

[Steve Ricoh]

Found this interesting review of the Plustek 8200i AE - an ongoing review as the author gains a better working knowledge of the product. It generally gets a high level of approval

 

The author mentions colour casts and other issues making me think whether the Ai option would be a better as it includes the IT8 profile target. Or whether VueScan would be a worthy compliment to the basic 8200i version, if indeed the Plustek 8200i can be purchased without SilverFast.

 

Here's the review if anyone is interested: http://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/plustek-8200i/index.html

[250swb]

, if indeed the Plustek 8200i can be purchased without SilverFast.

 

 

 

Plustek scanners are all pretty well identical apart from the bundled Silverfast software. When a new scanner is released it is the same as the old scanner except for the new version of Silverfast. The best thing to do with any Plustek scanner is load Silverfast, take one look at it, then shut it down and never use it, ever. Vuescan is far superior in every respect. The only thing scanning software needs to do is help you record as much information from the negative as possible, nothing else, you do not want to try and create a perfect image at the scanning stage. You then use Photoshop for the serious jobs of contrast, colour, sharpening, etc. 

[Martin B]

Found this interesting review of the Plustek 8200i AE - an ongoing review as the author gains a better working knowledge of the product. It generally gets a high level of approval

 

The author mentions colour casts and other issues making me think whether the Ai option would be a better as it includes the IT8 profile target. Or whether VueScan would be a worthy compliment to the basic 8200i version, if indeed the Plustek 8200i can be purchased without SilverFast.

 

Here's the review if anyone is interested: http://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/plustek-8200i/index.html

 

Thanks for the link to this review - well written and confirms some of my own findings with my 8200Ai scanner. I also mostly scan files at 3600 dpi. In another thread here I already described my findings with this scanner and SilverFast 8 settings. For color negatives it is critical to set the correct white balance (or film setting in SilverFast 8) to bring the colors out right from the beginning. I only need to adjust saturation settings a bit afterwards in post processing. 

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267131-plustek-scanners-and-silverfast-8-software/

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Plustek scanners are all pretty well identical apart from the bundled Silverfast software. When a new scanner is released it is the same as the old scanner except for the new version of Silverfast. The best thing to do with any Plustek scanner is load Silverfast, take one look at it, then shut it down and never use it, ever. Vuescan is far superior in every respect. The only thing scanning software needs to do is help you record as much information from the negative as possible, nothing else, you do not want to try and create a perfect image at the scanning stage. You then use Photoshop for the serious jobs of contrast, colour, sharpening, etc. 

 

Honestly, I never used Vuescan and simply got used to SilverFast 8 - I highly recommend to install the latest software update since it resolves a few unpleasant bugs in older versions. I also didn't want to vest more money to purchase Vuescan after I bought the scanner. I have a good workflow now for my negative scans using SilverFast.

[Steve Ricoh]

Yet another review of the Plustek 8200i, this time this is more about SilverFast 8 v VueScan 9: http://blog.kelsch.photography/?p=1024

 

Reading the review its clear that both Silverfast and VueScan support Plustek's inbuilt IR capability for dust and scratch removal, as well as multi-exposure. This involves 3 scans in total, with VueScan coming tops in terms of overall scan speed with comparable image quality at 7200dpi, but significantly improved image quality at 3600dpi for VueScan. So VueScan wins.

 

As far as I can make out, the only benefit of ordering the Ai version of the Plustek scanner is the bundled Auto IT8 Calibration. However, having read 250swb's text above, it seems this is unnecessary as colour casts / colour correction can be corrected in Adobe Photoshop (or Lightroom).

 

This being true, it begs the question why Plustek will only sell the scanner bundled with the Silverfast software, either the SE or the Ai versions. Financial inducement, or am I being cynical.

[Steve Ricoh]

Thanks for the link to this review - well written and confirms some of my own findings with my 8200Ai scanner. I also mostly scan files at 3600 dpi. In another thread here I already described my findings with this scanner and SilverFast 8 settings. For color negatives it is critical to set the correct white balance (or film setting in SilverFast 8) to bring the colors out right from the beginning. I only need to adjust saturation settings a bit afterwards in post processing.

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267131-plustek-scanners-and-silverfast-8-software/

Thanks Martin, having read the entire thread linked here it seems the Claibration slide (IT8 ?) that comes with the Ai version is extremely helpful for obtain correct colours. I was leaning towards the SE version and ordering VueScan separately, now I'm a bit confused.

Also, I plan to do reversal (I have a roll of Velvia 50 waiting) and read with interest the focusing issues you encountered with your own slides, yet the Claibration slide (cardboard mount?) was fine. Is there a discernible difference between the thickness of your own slides and the Claibration Slide? In my position, if I'm using a Plustek, would you recommend having the reversal film cut into strips, unmounted?

 

PS I'm curious to know how the Plustek scanner focuses, and what DoF it manages to apply. I would have thought it's virtually impossible to keep a film strip completely flat in the film holder supplied, so the designers surely engineered some DoF out of necessity.

[Martin B]

Thanks Martin, having read the entire thread linked here it seems the Claibration slide (IT8 ?) that comes with the Ai version is extremely helpful for obtain correct colours. I was leaning towards the SE version and ordering VueScan separately, now I'm a bit confused.

Also, I plan to do reversal (I have a roll of Velvia 50 waiting) and read with interest the focusing issues you encountered with your own slides, yet the Claibration slide (cardboard mount?) was fine. Is there a discernible difference between the thickness of your own slides and the Claibration Slide? In my position, if I'm using a Plustek, would you recommend having the reversal film cut into strips, unmounted?

 

PS I'm curious to know how the Plustek scanner focuses, and what DoF it manages to apply. I would have thought it's virtually impossible to keep a film strip completely flat in the film holder supplied, so the designers surely engineered some DoF out of necessity.

 

Hi Steve, you caught correctly the main con point of my review of the Plustek scanner. Slide scanning with frames is definitely an issue here - I didn't see this described anywhere in other reviews, but I can definitely tell from my own experience here. The thickness of the slide frame is important - I also seen that the calibration slide turned out fine, but its frame thickness was a bit less than my other slide frames. This all woudn't be an issue if there would be an option to adjust the scanner focus somewhere - but it doesn't exist. The Plustek scanner has a fixed focus point which can't be changed at all. DoF is very shallow, too - I have seen this with a more curved Kodak negative film which I had to tape onto the negative strip holder to make the strip as flat as possible. So I highly recommend scanning slide film without frames. The slide film strips can then be used in the negative film holder instead of the slide frame one. 

[Steve Ricoh]

Thanks Martin, good to be forewarned about slide film, I must remember to order film strips instead of mounts.

DoF does indeed sound shallow based on your experience, viz negative curl and mount size. Obviously whatever DoF designed and built into the unit it must be fairly limited. Although I can't speak for every scanner, I hear the Epson V850 has adjustment in 0.5mm steps via the negative/slide mount. The designers have obviously thought about the potential problems and taken ways to offset the carrier.

 

Back to scanner calibration. I'm still trying to get my head round the IT8 calibration and whether the Ai version is necessary, or whether it's satisfactory to produce a RAW dump using VueScan and then correct in PP.

[gbealnz]

Start cheap, work out which way to go from there.

I got a used Plustek 8100, and a used Epson 4870, neither is new or the latest and greatest, but boy oh boy I am having fun.

Gary

[Steve Ricoh]

On the question of whether there are any benefits of film... most certainly; my concentration to the needs, composition, exposure etc have improved leaps and bounds. I'd say film is an essential learning process. But I'm still finding when I use a digital camera, I'm sucked into the mental attitude 'I'll shoot because I can, its costing nothing' (apart from the fact the M240 wasn't cheap). It's a strange experience.

[250swb]

Thanks Martin, good to be forewarned about slide film, I must remember to order film strips instead of mounts.

DoF does indeed sound shallow based on your experience, viz negative curl and mount size. Obviously whatever DoF designed and built into the unit it must be fairly limited. Although I can't speak for every scanner, I hear the Epson V850 has adjustment in 0.5mm steps via the negative/slide mount. The designers have obviously thought about the potential problems and taken ways to offset the carrier.

 

Back to scanner calibration. I'm still trying to get my head round the IT8 calibration and whether the Ai version is necessary, or whether it's satisfactory to produce a RAW dump using VueScan and then correct in PP.

 

The question of focusing scanners has come up many times on the forum. Aside from the practicalities it also touches on what it is photographers think they are seeing.

 

The datum point home/pro scanners over the previous twenty years have been the Minolta Multi Pro and Nikon 9000. You can calibrate the focus on these scanners but firstly you should ask why you need to calibrate focus. It can only be done within a small window of adjustment anyway so you do still need separate holders for say mounted and unmounted slides. Well it needs adjusting because the negative can bow, but it's a compromise because it still leaves part of the neg out of focus. And it needs adjusting because the lamps used created a lot of local heat, so as the scanning session proceeds re-calibrating focus was always a good idea. And what did you see when the neg was in tack sharp focus? The lens had such narrow DOF you saw the scan of a layer of grain, in B&W especially the grain would appear like pepper grains rather than film grain because film has grain throughout the layer of emulsion, but the scanner was only recording a small sample. So sharpness appeared very high, but it fooled the eye. 

 

Move on to the LED scanners from Plustek. The LED lamp creates far less heat so it becomes academic if it needs to be able to focus if the negative holders and mechanism can be made precise enough. And the lens does have more DOF because you can now record more of the grain depth. Two 'problems' occur, the first of course is that if you have a curly negative it is more difficult to scan it, or at least choose which bit comes out sharp. The second is that in recording more of the depth of grain it can appear to be less sharp than say a Nikon 9000 scan. There are ways to get your curly negative flatter, but it is best to start out with a flat negative. And careful sharpening deals with the second problem with the advantage that you have a film like grain recorded rather than the pepper grain. The Epson flatbed adjustable holders are nothing really to do with compensating for the film, they are to compensate for the inherent inaccuracy of the negative holders and the scanning mechanism, and even then the adjustments are crude but workable.

 

So nothing is perfect, but if you know why it isn't perfect you've almost won the battle.

[Martin B]

The question of focusing scanners has come up many times on the forum. Aside from the practicalities it also touches on what it is photographers think they are seeing.

 

The datum point home/pro scanners over the previous twenty years have been the Minolta Multi Pro and Nikon 9000. You can calibrate the focus on these scanners but firstly you should ask why you need to calibrate focus. It can only be done within a small window of adjustment anyway so you do still need separate holders for say mounted and unmounted slides. Well it needs adjusting because the negative can bow, but it's a compromise because it still leaves part of the neg out of focus. And it needs adjusting because the lamps used created a lot of local heat, so as the scanning session proceeds re-calibrating focus was always a good idea. And what did you see when the neg was in tack sharp focus? The lens had such narrow DOF you saw the scan of a layer of grain, in B&W especially the grain would appear like pepper grains rather than film grain because film has grain throughout the layer of emulsion, but the scanner was only recording a small sample. So sharpness appeared very high, but it fooled the eye. 

 

Move on to the LED scanners from Plustek. The LED lamp creates far less heat so it becomes academic if it needs to be able to focus if the negative holders and mechanism can be made precise enough. And the lens does have more DOF because you can now record more of the grain depth. Two 'problems' occur, the first of course is that if you have a curly negative it is more difficult to scan it, or at least choose which bit comes out sharp. The second is that in recording more of the depth of grain it can appear to be less sharp than say a Nikon 9000 scan. There are ways to get your curly negative flatter, but it is best to start out with a flat negative. And careful sharpening deals with the second problem with the advantage that you have a film like grain recorded rather than the pepper grain. The Epson flatbed adjustable holders are nothing really to do with compensating for the film, they are to compensate for the inherent inaccuracy of the negative holders and the scanning mechanism, and even then the adjustments are crude but workable.

 

So nothing is perfect, but if you know why it isn't perfect you've almost won the battle.

 

Not sure if you really worked yourself with a Plustek scanner device reading your comment above. If you look at my link which I posted earlier, you can clearly tell that my slide in a regular slide frame was not sharp at all compared to the slide itself after being taken out of its frame holder. This has zero to do with "appearing" sharp or not - it is a fact. I wish the Plustek scanner would have the option to be focus adjustable - this would facilitate this issue lot. 

If you developed negatives yourself, you would see that there a big differences between brands and thickness of negatives and also flat or not flat. I personally prefer now Ilford film since it is less thick than Kodak films and therefore easier to dry and flatter to scan. If a developed film is curly, it is not easy at all to get it flat - it is time consuming and tedious. 

[Steve Ricoh]

...The Epson flatbed adjustable holders are nothing really to do with compensating for the film, they are to compensate for the inherent inaccuracy of the negative holders and the scanning mechanism, and even then the adjustments are crude but workable.

 

So nothing is perfect, but if you know why it isn't perfect you've almost won the battle.

Film scanning can be a time consuming business... and that's just reading about it.

 

Picking up on your point concerning inaccuracy of negative holders. In this review of the Epson V850 by Mark Segal https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-New-Epson-V850-Pro-Scanner-Final.pdf he mentions (on page 16) adjusting the frame 'raisers' to accommodate the differences between slides and strip film.

[pico]

Printing a 35mm negative in a conventional darkroom will not have the same outcome as a digital scan, for better or worse, regardless of the viewing medium (screen or real life view of print.)

 

Key phrase is 'better or worse'.

 

My enlargers (Leica/Leitz) are meticulously aligned, and I use the best grain focus devices. Physics reveal that an enlargement cannot possibly give us the greatest resolution, but in my analog paradigm it is good enough.

 

If I can find it, I have a casual snapshot scanned as a print and from a negative. The negative scan is weary. I will look now.

[indergaard]

I see the IT8 Color Calibration target for the Plustek OpticFilm 8200 Ai being mentioned a few times here in regards to correcting for color casts and such.

It's important to know that the IT8 Color calibration target ONLY works when scanning color SLIDE (E6) film. The IT8 calibration is useless for color NEGATIVE (C41) film!

So unless you scan lots of E6 color film, it's really not worth the extra. Neither is the dust and IR capabilities in my opinion. I've tried using the dust, scratch and IR capabilities of a Plustek Opticfilm 120 before, both with Silverfast and VueScan, and I ALWAYS end up rescanning due to some artifacts or misalignments, and rather just fixing the dust and scratches manually in Photoshop!

 

I'd rather get a Plustek OpticFilm 8100 and save lots of money! Besides the IT8 target and IR capabilities, it's exactly the same scanner, and can be had for virtually 1/3 of the cost of the 8200 Ai.

 

A life-time license for VueScan costs like $80 and works for ALL scanner types and manufacturers. Silverfast is not really worth it. It costs a ton more. Upgrades cost a lot. And the license ONLY works for that specific type of scanner, from that specific type of brand. It's a horrible licensing practice. Silverfast can make some scans great, but unless you manually switch off every auto-feature it has, the scans are gonna be inconsistent in regards to color saturation, color balance, white balance and exposure. VueScan is much much easier to get consistent results with.

[indergaard]

Thanks Martin, good to be forewarned about slide film, I must remember to order film strips instead of mounts.

DoF does indeed sound shallow based on your experience, viz negative curl and mount size. Obviously whatever DoF designed and built into the unit it must be fairly limited. Although I can't speak for every scanner, I hear the Epson V850 has adjustment in 0.5mm steps via the negative/slide mount. The designers have obviously thought about the potential problems and taken ways to offset the carrier.

 

Back to scanner calibration. I'm still trying to get my head round the IT8 calibration and whether the Ai version is necessary, or whether it's satisfactory to produce a RAW dump using VueScan and then correct in PP.

 

 

I'd get the Plustek 8100. The Ai version is really not worth it. Remember, the IT8 calibration target ONLY works with color slide (e6) film. It doesn't help with anything on C41/Color negative film! There aren't a lot of labs processing E6 any more...

 

Also, the only other difference between the 8100 and 8200 Ai is the IR/dust and scratch removal. From experience, this feature doesn't work that well. On my Plustek OpticFilm 120 (a high-end medium format and 35mm scanner) this feature is really unreliable. I get much better and more consistent results by just removing dust and scratches in Photoshop myself. Other than that, the only remaining difference between the 8100 and 8200 Ai is Silverfast Ai Studio. Basically just a software upgrade. I would recommend anyone to rather pay $80 to get a life-time (for all devices) license on VueScan. Silverfast is really inconsistent, although if you disable every auto-feature and use linear scans, it can be consistent. But in this respect - VueScan does better. Silverfast upgrades cost a small fortune, and they will ONLY work on that specific type of scanner from that manufacturer. Silverfast has a really horrible and user-unfriendly licensing deal going on... Not worth it.

The 8100 should be about 1/3 of the price of the 8200 Ai new... Spend $80 on VueScan from the savings, and use the rest of the savings to buy some film!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve Ricoh]

I'll probably shoot more B&W than colour, but this may change as I quite like the look of the colour images in 'I love film'. But in regards to Scanner purchase, due to a sudden rush of blood I ordered and have taken delivery of an 8200i Ai!

 

I'm dying to ask this, what differences might I expect to see using B&W film compared to a B&W conversion from, say, an M240? Adam Miller mentions from time to time the true deep blacks that can't be generated using colour conversion, but it's hard to appreciate unless it's possible to see comparative shots of the same scene. As for the M246 against film, that's another question, but as I don't own one of these (yet) I'll leave that for another time. Anyway I'm rather hoping my film M will be a good substitute.