Lets talk about home scanners

[quietglow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just noticed this topic and wonder why more people don't do what I do:

I use a Nikon Coolscan 5000 with an SA-21 feeder that has been converted to an SA-30 (a process which takes minor soldering skills and about 30 min). This allows me to develop a roll of film, start the roll scanning, then come back 45 min later to 36 or whatever scans at ~20mp. It's about as low-demand as scanning gets while also having exceptionally high quality. Kinda like having a slow Pakon which scans at much higher quality. 

The prices on these have begun to climb recently. I ought to get another one and stash it in the closet. 

[250swb]

22 hours ago, quietglow said:

 

The prices on these have begun to climb recently. I ought to get another one and stash it in the closet. 

If you think buying a scanner that can't be serviced any more will protect your own workflow, go for it. But down the line when will it be time to go for a DSLR and a macro lens, now while you can benefit immediately, or later when you may think 'I wish I'd done this sooner'? 

[Advertisement]

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

[quietglow]

10 minutes ago, 250swb said:

If you think buying a scanner that can't be serviced any more will protect your own workflow, go for it. But down the line when will it be time to go for a DSLR and a macro lens, now while you can benefit immediately, or later when you may think 'I wish I'd done this sooner'? 

I bought the scanner with a fresh CLA and a 6 month warranty. There are at least two folks currently providing those CLAs and selling serviced scanners, and one of those people has extensively documented the process of caring/repairing them yourself. For what I'd spend on a DSLR setup (I don't own a DSLR) I am sure I could have easily bought 2 CLAd units, and really maybe 3. I am old enough that that looks like a lifetime supply to me! 

 

[250swb]

2 minutes ago, quietglow said:

I bought the scanner with a fresh CLA and a 6 month warranty. There are at least two folks currently providing those CLAs and selling serviced scanners, and one of those people has extensively documented the process of caring/repairing them yourself. For what I'd spend on a DSLR setup (I don't own a DSLR) I am sure I could have easily bought 2 CLAd units, and really maybe 3. I am old enough that that looks like a lifetime supply to me! 

 

Well I can't argue with digging in and seeing out your time. So good luck and I hope you get to your 4th CLA.  But these CLA's (as they are with Nikon 9000's) are not done on the basis of repairing what you have (like replacing a Leica shutter curtain repair etc), they are eventually resolved based on finding broken scanners to raid for parts. So while a CLA will always remain a possibility anything more exotic than a simple CLA will need spare parts, of which there are few, or none. 

[quietglow]

14 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Well I can't argue with digging in and seeing out your time. So good luck and I hope you get to your 4th CLA.  But these CLA's (as they are with Nikon 9000's) are not done on the basis of repairing what you have (like replacing a Leica shutter curtain repair etc), they are eventually resolved based on finding broken scanners to raid for parts. So while a CLA will always remain a possibility anything more exotic than a simple CLA will need spare parts, of which there are few, or none. 

At this point, I honestly would be much more worried about the supply of film than these scanner parts, and that's coming from a guy who just bought a 400' roll of Kodak 250d. As film gets more expensive fewer people are willing to keep shooting it, and the prices of things like broken scanners for parts goes down as well. Seems like a pretty small risk for a huge payoff: having an automated scanner was what singlehandedly allowed me to shoot film more or less exclusively. I probably spend 45 seconds a roll doing anything with a scanner. If I had to take a photo of every frame of film I shot, I think I'd shoot a lot less film. That said, maybe then I wouldn't need that 400' roll of 250d!

[250swb]

4 minutes ago, quietglow said:

At this point, I honestly would be much more worried about the supply of film than these scanner parts, and that's coming from a guy who just bought a 400' roll of Kodak 250d. As film gets more expensive fewer people are willing to keep shooting it, and the prices of things like broken scanners for parts goes down as well. Seems like a pretty small risk for a huge payoff: having an automated scanner was what singlehandedly allowed me to shoot film more or less exclusively. I probably spend 45 seconds a roll doing anything with a scanner. If I had to take a photo of every frame of film I shot, I think I'd shoot a lot less film. That said, maybe then I wouldn't need that 400' roll of 250d!

You spend 45 seconds! How long did it take you to shoot a roll, hours, days? I scan every single negative I shoot at least to the 'contact sheet' stage (on and Epson V700), and I keep them all, but these are my treasures that I've spent time working on, I couldn't dismiss them so casually. I had some pretty high end tutors and the thing they all said with equal seriousness is that you learn more from understanding your failures as you do from being smug about your successes. Tell me I got you wrong.

[quietglow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

You spend 45 seconds! How long did it take you to shoot a roll, hours, days? I scan every single negative I shoot at least to the 'contact sheet' stage (on and Epson V700), and I keep them all, but these are my treasures that I've spent time working on, I couldn't dismiss them so casually. I had some pretty high end tutors and the thing they all said with equal seriousness is that you learn more from understanding your failures as you do from being smug about your successes. Tell me I got you wrong.

I am not sure I understand, exactly, what you've "got me" as, but I have spent many hours in a (wet) darkroom printing both color and B&W. I also scanned for years using a V700. I like spending lots of time shooting images, and I like spending lots of time making prints. What I don't like spending time on is messing with the scanning process, so the dedicated automatic scanner, made at the height of popular demand for converting film images to digital ones, makes sense for me. I also use VC paper in the darkroom, perhaps another sign of me dismissing my images casually? Joking aside, if you like taking photos of your photos, I would never begrudge you that. I'd rather use time spent scanning on something else. 

[250swb]

7 hours ago, quietglow said:

I am not sure I understand, exactly, what you've "got me" as, but I have spent many hours in a (wet) darkroom printing both color and B&W. I also scanned for years using a V700. I like spending lots of time shooting images, and I like spending lots of time making prints. What I don't like spending time on is messing with the scanning process, so the dedicated automatic scanner, made at the height of popular demand for converting film images to digital ones, makes sense for me. I also use VC paper in the darkroom, perhaps another sign of me dismissing my images casually? Joking aside, if you like taking photos of your photos, I would never begrudge you that. I'd rather use time spent scanning on something else. 

I'm delighted you are still advocating the wet darkroom, but I'm confused by you advocating a scanner and then dissing it almost in the same breath as you don't like 'messing with the scanning process'. Some people aim for the stars by using a wet darkroom and not wait for the mail to deliver some 4x6 prints, but you are saying the same can't be true for people aiming to get the most out of scanning? Is this actually a status issue of wet darkroom vs scanning you've come to a scanning thread to air? That's pretty unfair trying to muddy the waters.

[quietglow]

Would it be unfairly muddying the waters if I were to say I don't like messing with flattening curly fiber based prints (true) so I have a dry mount press to flatten them (true)? How about I don't like messing with spotting prints (true) so I dry my negatives in a drying cabinet (false, but one day...)? No.

So, back to the point: a Nikon dedicated film scanner is wonderful tool with which you can make high quality scans, and it comes with the (I think) benefit of being able to be automated. And all that for less than the cost of some Leica lens hoods. While they are no longer made, there are many of them around and they're pretty simple machines. There are even a few people around who work on them professionally. 

If you find scanning (or taking photos of your negatives) tedious, you'll want to check this option out.

[250swb]

On 8/22/2023 at 11:29 AM, quietglow said:

 

If you find scanning (or taking photos of your negatives) tedious, you'll want to check this option out.

I don't think telling people photography is tedious is very helpful.

The bulk of the thread is about making the best of the scanning process, and it only becomes drudgery if consistently there isn't the prospect of a good image at the end of it. It's like saying fishing is tedious because long periods are spent doing nothing, but it's the positive mindset that changes that about for the fisherman.

[quietglow]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

The bulk of the thread is about making the best of the scanning process, and it only becomes drudgery if consistently there isn't the prospect of a good image at the end of it. It's like saying fishing is tedious because long periods are spent doing nothing, but it's the positive mindset that changes that about for the fisherman.

It's worth noting that this is both 100% your opinion that you're stating as fact and also something that many would disagree with. Making photographs is one of my favorite ways to spend my time. That in no way means that certain aspects of it cannot be tedious. Have you ever made a run of a 100 prints in the darkroom?

I also fish, by the way, and I don't tie my own flies because I don't find it a good use of my time anymore. But I do make cane flyroods, which I can certainly imagine some folks would find astoundingly tedious (hours of repetitive motion in which small mistakes can ruin the rod). My photographs, my fish catching, and my flyrods all could be better, but I don't think it would be spending more time on the parts I find tedious.

My post is about making the best of the scanning process: using a tool designed to scan film at the height of the period of time where people shot film regularly and needed it scanned. In fact, I am using one of the best scanners ever made for the prosumer market, and when I advocated for using it here, something that seems ming bogglingly obvious to me, I end up arguing with this guy about whether I can make good photographs because I find scanning to be tedious. Incredible.

Can we move on please?

[marchyman]

On 8/22/2023 at 3:29 AM, quietglow said:

I dry my negatives in a drying cabinet (false, but one day...)?

An enclosed shower in the bathroom off of a rarely used guest bedroom works quite well.  Dust spots on negatives are mostly gone since I started hanging my film there to dry.

Edited September 6, 2023 by marchyman

[250swb]

9 hours ago, quietglow said:

 Have you ever made a run of a 100 prints in the darkroom?

 

As a professional Press photographer it was always a late night session after a dress rehearsal for a play, for prints ready to go out to the newspapers the following day. And I thought of every print as 'ka-ching!'.  I've got to admit that now as an amateur 100 would seem either as overkill, or a slap in the face of a customer if they ever got to think it was laborious for me to make a print for them.

[Ouroboros]

 

First off, I would not use an Epson flatbed scanner for scanning 35mm, apart from making 'contact sheets' or for low resolution web display, I don't think there is much to commend a consumer level flatbed scanner for scanning 35mm film.

I have a Plustek 8200ai.  It's not a bad little scanner for the cost and I've made prints up to A3+ from  Plustek scans, which have been fine but I dislike scanning with both Vuescan and Silverfast.  I have both and dislike them equally, as a UI they are both so old and clunky it feels like a massive step backwards that I don't need in my workflow.

For 35mm scanning I prefer using my remaining old Nikon D810 with a 60mm f2.8G Micro-Nikkor lens and Nikon ES-2 copying attachment.  I can copy a 36 exp film in just a few minutes with this set-up.  I copy the emulsion side of the negative or transparency and the files are excellent.  Since I already had the Nikon D810 and the 60mm micro-nikkor, the cost of the ES-2 attachment was more than offset by the convenience and speed in use and the quality of the files it creates.   

It's a really cost-effective way of teasing the best out of a 35mm frame.  The resulting .NEF files provide a bit more scope for post processing than the .tif's from the Plustek.  

Most of my work in any of my chosen formats is black and white and most of my 35mm work is with Leica cameras.  The aesthetic qualities and nuances of different film and developer combinations are faithfully retained all the way through to prints  and the process is faster and more convenient with my Nikon D810/ES-2 workflow.

 

[quietglow]

12 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

For 35mm scanning I prefer using my remaining old Nikon D810 with a 60mm f2.8G Micro-Nikkor lens and Nikon ES-2

What light source do you use with the ES-2? And did you find that different types of light yielded different results? These have always intrigued me, but they were seriously difficult to find for a couple of years there.

[quietglow]

14 hours ago, 250swb said:

As a professional Press photographer it

All my experiences with big runs were also as a press photog, but instead working for a college newspaper. All night in the darkroom was basically just in trade for free tickets to shows etc. Def less "kaching!" to the task when you've essentially already gotten the payment and would rather be home asleep!

[Ouroboros]

15 minutes ago, quietglow said:

What light source do you use with the ES-2? And did you find that different types of light yielded different results? These have always intrigued me, but they were seriously difficult to find for a couple of years there.

Daylight is the usual light source I use, if in darkness I occasionally use my old Gepe Lightbox.  With black and white film you can use most light sources without problems.

[Greenhilltony]

It's quite a funny thing when someone says, you're not taking something seriously because you want to do it fast, especially when the topic is around film. For the case here, if I hear someone claims he wants to scan his rolls of film real quickly, I definitely understands and will not question his attitude towards his photography.

My DSLR available now is the Pentax K5-II, and I don't have a specific macro lens. My father purchases some cheap and crappy close-up rings and try to take shots of the film with a few old manual focus prime lenses. The results are not satisfactory of course. We just don't want to put extra money into the world of DSLR, just for digitising film. Instead of buying a D850 and a macro lens setup, we bought a Plustek 8200i and are getting very fine results out of it.

[charlesphoto99]

On 9/6/2023 at 3:19 AM, quietglow said:

 

My post is about making the best of the scanning process: using a tool designed to scan film at the height of the period of time where people shot film regularly and needed it scanned. In fact, I am using one of the best scanners ever made for the prosumer market

 

If you can let us know where we can find one of these scanners for 'the price of a Leica lens hood' please let us know. And when they stop working, where to get them fixed. I had an Imacon 646 that went bust three years ago. No motherboards to be found anywhere on the globe. It's now a $10k doorstop (though I got more than $10k use out of it over 16 years). 

DSLR scanning is really the way to go, or a Plustek if speed isn't a priority (though I question their reliability). And yes, I've made a run of 200 11X14 prints in a darkroom before. Unfortunately I had to give up darkrooms 15 + years ago for health reasons (mostly). Stupidly sold a state of the art darkroom that paid for half of an M8. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[quietglow]

18 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If you can let us know where we can find one of these scanners for 'the price of a Leica lens hood' please let us know. And when they stop working, where to get them fixed. I had an Imacon 646 that went bust three years ago. No motherboards to be found anywhere on the globe. It's now a $10k doorstop (though I got more than $10k use out of it over 16 years). 

DSLR scanning is really the way to go, or a Plustek if speed isn't a priority (though I question their reliability). And yes, I've made a run of 200 11X14 prints in a darkroom before. Unfortunately I had to give up darkrooms 15 + years ago for health reasons (mostly). Stupidly sold a state of the art darkroom that paid for half of an M8. 

 

I wrote "the price of some Leica lens hoods." If you're interested, check the ebay sold listings for some jaw dropping prices. I think I paid $800 for my scanner from Gleb Shtengle, who is one of the folks who services them. I just looked, and there were 4 Leica hoods on ebay sold in the last month that cost more, so the claim does still hold.

I would certainly SLR scan over paying 10k for a scanner. But $800? It too is a doorstop if anything significant breaks (though Gleb and others do stock parts, and broken donor machines have gotten very cheap), but it's an $800 doorstop. That doesn't seem like a bad bet to me, especially when these are very reliable machines. But not having to babysit a scanner is super valuable to me. 

I have an M8 and shoot it fairly regularly (it's my only digital Leica I've kept). The b&w conversions from it are really special with that IR sensitivity. As much as I love it, if I didn't have a darkroom, you better believe I'd trade it for 1/2 of a nice one!