250swb Posted September 7, 2023 Share #41 Posted September 7, 2023 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 hours ago, Greenhilltony said: 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. As far as I can see nobody has said speed is the enemy, rather the opposite, that doing something slowly is tedious and negative. Each stage of a workflow can be faster or slower depending on the equipment being used, but boredom, or lack of it, has yet to be proven an actual technique that improves a scan. It is not a good parameter to think that speed makes things better given the time already spent shooting the roll of film and developing it. Some people even send their film away for processing so factor days in until it is returned and then a few extra minutes doing something slowly are argued to be negative. There is the dumbass comment you often hear in digital forums, 'I don't post process my photos or aim to get the best out of them because I haven't got the time', to which the answer is 'why bother at all then?', so let's not even start to go down that route. Speed is simply a bye product of workflow, not an aim. I now make my full resolution scans with a digital camera and each takes maybe half a second rather than many minutes to scan. Do I appreciate that speed, yes. Would I go back to a dedicated film scanner if one came along that could beat the digital camera but took longer, also yes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 7, 2023 Posted September 7, 2023 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Lets talk about home scanners. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ouroboros Posted September 7, 2023 Share #42 Posted September 7, 2023 1 hour 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. That's a real shame. I've been using an Imacon 646 since buying new in 2003 for scanning thousands of 6x6, 6x9, 6x17 and 5x4" frames. It's been reliable throughout and the scan quality is excellent. A few years ago I gave a series of talks at The Photography Show on the Epson Stand. During my talks, the Epson guys were running off 4x12 foot prints from some of my 6x17cm Velvia 50 transparencies that I'd scanned on my Imacon. The detail in the prints was incredible! Hasselblad let a lot of photographers down when they pulled the plug on Flextight scanners. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markc2 Posted January 23 Share #43 Posted January 23 (edited) Imacon Flextight 343 scanner. It does wonderful work. I wish the process was faster, but I'm not doing this in an environment where speed is an issue. Waiting for my 6x6 film to comeback takes a whole lot longer than me scanning anything now. It's hard to buy a new camera because I want something to exceed what the Flextight is capable of. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited January 23 by markc2 added photo from R8, this is a Leica Forum :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/379846-lets-talk-about-home-scanners/?do=findComment&comment=5004036'>More sharing options...
markc2 Posted January 23 Share #44 Posted January 23 On 9/7/2023 at 9:53 AM, Ouroboros said: That's a real shame. I've been using an Imacon 646 since buying new in 2003 for scanning thousands of 6x6, 6x9, 6x17 and 5x4" frames. It's been reliable throughout and the scan quality is excellent. A few years ago I gave a series of talks at The Photography Show on the Epson Stand. During my talks, the Epson guys were running off 4x12 foot prints from some of my 6x17cm Velvia 50 transparencies that I'd scanned on my Imacon. The detail in the prints was incredible! Hasselblad let a lot of photographers down when they pulled the plug on Flextight scanners. 😭 So true!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.