Scanning film: Plustek 8300 vs. Sony camera + Valoi easy35?

[blackdot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Crem said:

I don't have any side by sides, but something to be aware of is that camera scanning has a higher learning curve and a lot of variability in how people actually do it. So if you look at a side by side comparison you are going to have to dig into the details. Some things I would check in any comparison...

1. Lens: Are they using a true macro with flat field of focus? People try all sorts of crazy setups including zoom lenses with extension tubes, vintage lenses, iPhones, etc. 

2. Light source: Are they using a 95+ CRI light? I've read about everything from iPhone screens with a white background image and 99 CRI panels. Light source quality is one of the most important variables to control for with color film.

3. Software: Are they inverting the negative themselves in Lightroom or using software like Negative Lab Pro? Software makes a huge difference since negatives are interpretive.

4. Operator skill: It really took me a while to get a good setup and workflow with camera scanning. I've learned a ton after scanning ~160 rolls and I need to go back and redo some of my early scans.

The Negative Lab Pro Users group on Facebook (12k members) would be a great place to look (or ask) for side by side comparisons.

For example:

1 Micro-Nikkor 60mm

2 Either a 95-99 CRI panel or electronic flash (is flash ok?)

3 NLP

4 Someone with decades of experience shooting, scanning, color and b/w darkroom. So I get the principles and learn fast.

[Crem]

4 minutes ago, blackdot said:

For example:

1 Micro-Nikkor 60mm

2 Either a 95-99 CRI panel or electronic flash (is flash ok?)

3 NLP

4 Someone with decades of experience shooting, scanning, color and b/w darkroom. So I get the principles and learn fast.

I'm pretty sure I've seen that lens mentioned in the NLP Facebook group, but I don't recall results. I'm sure some digging can confirm if it has a nice flat field of focus and can do 1:1. My guess is it's more than good enough at F8 which is where you'll want to be for camera scanning.

I've never tried using a flash, but absolutely a 95 - 99 CRI panel will do what you need and is the standard for NLP users. How would you focus if you use a flash? I manually focus on the film grain and a good quality light panel makes that really easy to do with a modern mirrorless camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[madNbad]

The Plustek has a fixed lens and no way to compensate for flexing of either the negative or the carrier. In regards to using electronic flash, it's often the choice for high production scanning. It avoids the heat build up of a constant light source and any variation in output.

I use a Negative Supply 5X7 Lightsource Pro 95 CRI, which has been discontinued by the manufacturer and replace with the next generation of brighter, more stable lighting. I'm only doing B&W so color correction isn't important to me.

Switching from a MF Macro lens to autofocus made a huge difference. Not only did it dramatically reduce time between scans, there was no longer a question about if the negative was in focus.

[blackdot]

16 minutes ago, Crem said:

I'm pretty sure I've seen that lens mentioned in the NLP Facebook group, but I don't recall results. I'm sure some digging can confirm if it has a nice flat field of focus and can do 1:1. My guess is it's more than good enough at F8 which is where you'll want to be for camera scanning.

I've never tried using a flash, but absolutely a 95 - 99 CRI panel will do what you need and is the standard for NLP users. How would you focus if you use a flash? I manually focus on the film grain and a good quality light panel makes that really easy to do with a modern mirrorless camera.

That's the annoying part about using a flash - having to have a separate light for focusing. I would like to avoid a copy stand setup for space reasons, so the Nikon ES-2 idea is attractive. I guess ideally I would find a high CRI source to sit on the other side of that. The Negative Supply and other recent dedicated light sources seem hard to buy, especially since I'm in Asia, so I guess I would looking at video lights or something like that. 

Some days I get excellent results with Plustek, and some days it seems like nothing is in focus. Portra 400 seems to do ok, but Ultramax is inconsistent, and this roll of Pro Image 100 is flat out blurred in the grain.

[250swb]

2 hours ago, Crem said:

I don't have any side by sides, but something to be aware of is that camera scanning has a higher learning curve and a lot of variability in how people actually do it. So if you look at a side by side comparison you are going to have to dig into the details. Some things I would check in any comparison...

 

I agree, but the learning curve is only equipment based, getting a good scan from a dedicated film scanner is far more difficult if taken to the maximum degree. I know you go on to describe how to do it well and cover the requirements, a good macro lens, a steady and easy to use platform, a good light source, and a good neg holder and software, but if people started out with these things there is hardly anything that needs learning.

[blackdot]

On 9/15/2023 at 5:00 PM, Ouroboros said:

I went from being a dslr scanning sceptic to a convert overnight when I bought a Nikon ES-2 copying attachment for dslr scanning 35mm negatives with my old Nikon D810 and 60mm micro-nikkor f2.8G lens that I already had sitting unused in a cupboard.  My son had put together his own Sony-based 35mm scanning set-up with an Essential film holder and was getting perfectly good enough results to persuade me to try it for myself ( he has a Leica M-A and a iiif).

Prior to buying the ES-2, I scanned 35mm on my Imacon 646 or Plustek 8300i.  The Imacon is painfully slow especially when scanning as a 3F and the Plustek is just slow with a choice of 2 equally painful UI’s.

Scanning 35mm frames with the D810 and ES-2 is lightning fast by comparison, all it takes is a few minutes  to load 6 strips of 6 frames into holders and copy them with the camera.  
 

I then have the benefit of more convenient RAW files  for post processing.

With my medium and large format films I only work on one frame at a time and my Imacon resolution is perfect for those formats,  speed is not a consideration.  
 

Otherwise I see no downside to scanning my 35mm films with the D810/ES-2 and will probably sell the Plustek.

 

Since you have the same Nikon gear I've been thinking about buying for this purpose, would you be able to compare (or even post samples, if you're feeling generous) of Imacon vs Plustek vs Es-2? 

[Woolybear]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A little late to the topic but thought some practical notes may help anyone stumbling across the topic as I did.

Using M43 G9M2 to scan some 35mm, lots of 110, lots of 35 mm slides and lots of 126. I started with an Epson V600 Photo and it produced massive, slow scans. Quality is fine but if what you've got is tons of negatives... speed matters and I can't fault digital camera scanning - over 3000 frames scanned in last month or so... couldn't imagine that with my scanner. Resolving to grain on everything scanned so far.

My setup is the Panasonic G9M2 with an olympus 30mm macro lens (60mm FF equivalent), stand is homemade (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Duronic-100cm-ExtraLong-Compatible-Monitor/dp/B01KG67RYO?th=1 for the pole, Manfrotto 035 SuperClamp and 037 camera mounting stud holding a Benro GD3W geared head - very solid). For film holders, the Essential Film Holder is great for 35mm negatives and slides but doesn't really support 126/110 so using the Valoi 110 and 126 holders. Ilumination is the Cinestill CS-Lite mounted in the Valoi Light Adapter (makes a very solid scanning base - pricey for what it is but recommended). Lightroom with NLP for storage / tagging and NLP for negative to positive conversion.

The camera scanning is fast, the setup is a bit fiddly. I've got lots of loose inherited negatives and they're all cut strips with a maximum of 5 frames so things like the Valoi advancer just wouldn't work I don't think but if I had rolls of 35mm... absolutely. Adhesive backed black rubber A4 sheets make an excellent working base for the Valoi light adapter (rubber feet on rubber sheet - very hard to nudge accidentally as you insert / move negatives). Read 3-5 mins/36mm film roll. I'm not that fast but probably 15 minutes/film to scan, crop and do an initial NLP conversion so I can see what I've got.

If you use magnetic rubber sheet (and cut some strips as well) it works really well with loose old photos to hold them flat.

If you've got lots to scan, you probably want to think quite hard about your workflow. I wanted to make sure I could always find my way back to the original negative so use Transnomino (https://www.transnomino.com/) to rename to negative_number-2_digit_frame_number.raw e.g. N517-13.rw2 pre import (LR can't number from 0 and some of my films needed that) and I use negative folders / sleeves and a sharpie to keep things easy to find again.

Good luck! It's slow but if you're scanning old family photos as I am... deeply rewarding.

[grahamc]

I can only comment on the plustek as I've never tried camera scanning, but the plustek (+ Vuescan + Negative Lab Pro in may case) is amazing 

I get very close to the quality I was getting from labs with top end commercial scanners. 

[Mr.Prime]

I use the Plustek. It's slow but it works and the results are good. I don't think I could face the idea of using a digital camera to photograph my negatives, it seems absurd if you know what I mean.

[newtoleica]

Digital camera (Z7 here but now use an M10-P). Olympus OM bellows, slide copier = 80mm f4 macro. Kaiser LED panel. 👌

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!

[Borna]

20 hours ago, grahamc said:

I can only comment on the plustek as I've never tried camera scanning, but the plustek (+ Vuescan + Negative Lab Pro in may case) is amazing 

I get very close to the quality I was getting from labs with top end commercial scanners. 

I agree on the plustek, I think the quality is great. Very satisfied with it. 

[250swb]

17 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I use the Plustek. It's slow but it works and the results are good. I don't think I could face the idea of using a digital camera to photograph my negatives, it seems absurd if you know what I mean.

What do you think the Plustek is if not a digital imaging device? 

[Mr.Prime]

I think it's a scanner and not a digital camera - you know what I meant didn't you.

[archive_all]

6 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I think it's a scanner and not a digital camera - you know what I meant didn't you.

I just want to get them digitized at home in as timely a manner as possible. I've dealt with scanners of different varieties for a decade and use a camera now. It's just copying using a copying stand plus there are advantages, less time is one. I abandoned the mindset of it being a picture of a picture and it's no longer an emotional tangle, it's no more odd than using a scanner.

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I think it's a scanner and not a digital camera - you know what I meant didn't you.

So you are saying copying your negatives by a dedicated (low tech) Plustek film scanner is a more intellectually reasoned response than using a high res digital camera (employing the appropriate number of megapixels)? The absurdity in your argument is that your lower tech solution is supposedly the best solution. And while any solution is a good outcome for anybody first embarking on film scanning (so thumbs up to an owner of a Plustek 👍), saying camera scanning is 'absurd' kind of points to an emotional conflict with the facts. Nikon 9000's, Minolta Multi Pro's, many Plustek scanners including the 120 are now behind me and into the weeds.

[Mr.Prime]

I wasn’t saying any if that. Only saying that using a digital camera to photograph the output from a film camera because I don’t want to use a digital camera in the first place is to me “silly in a humorous way” (Cambridge dictionary). You gotta have a certain, less serious (?) sense of humour to see it that way perhaps.

I’m sure that there are better options than the Plustek, and each to their own as to where they like to invest their time and money in this hobby and as to what kinds of results gives them pleasure.

 

But as to the thread title, I can say the Plustek does a great job for me. It’s easy to use, reliable (touch wood) and I like how it performs. Only limitation is, it can’t produce a contact sheet. A Sony camera could make a contact sheet type of image with the right set up.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Mr.Prime

[madNbad]

I used a Plustek 7600i for a number of years but finally was getting tired of spending an afternoon digitizing a roll of 36 exposures. I had tried a digital camera for actual photography but didn't like the weight of the camera and really preferred using film. I experimented with a budget set up that has evolved over the last several years. Now I can capture and convert a roll of 36 in about forty five minutes. My Sony A7II has been on the copy stand almost exclusively since new. I did try some Zeiss Loxia lenses with it but that didn't last very long. Still too heavy and I missed using film.

Plustek is one of the last few standing in a field that was abandoned by the major manufactures long ago and that's too bad. Then you have to look at companies like Negative Supply that went from being a Kickstarter with a single product in a Philadelphia warehouse to making a range of products that will handle formats from subminiature to 8X10 in a new manufacturing plant in California in less than five years to see where the future of film scanning is headed. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by madNbad

[Borna]

8 hours ago, madNbad said:

I used a Plustek 7600i for a number of years but finally was getting tired of spending an afternoon digitizing a roll of 36 exposures. I had tried a digital camera for actual photography but didn't like the weight of the camera and really preferred using film. I experimented with a budget set up that has evolved over the last several years. Now I can capture and convert a roll of 36 in about forty five minutes. My Sony A7II has been on the copy stand almost exclusively since new. I did try some Zeiss Loxia lenses with it but that didn't last very long. Still too heavy and I missed using film.

Plustek is one of the last few standing in a field that was abandoned by the major manufactures long ago and that's too bad. Then you have to look at companies like Negative Supply that went from being a Kickstarter with a single product in a Philadelphia warehouse to making a range of products that will handle formats from subminiature to 8X10 in a new manufacturing plant in California in less than five years to see where the future of film scanning is headed. 

Regarding Plustek, not sure if I agree - I just think that their negative scanning department is very small however I believe they are a quite big corporation active in many large fields within medicine, financing etc. 

I really hope that the future gives us more physical scanners as I like the process. Plustek is great as it is small, however very time consuming which I think they fixed with the 8300i model a bit. Digital camera photography of negatives, I read and understand everyone that is pro this solution, but I do not like it, I live too small to operate such tools. Sometimes people invest in crazy setups for 1000-1500 bucks before they are done, why not just buy a top of the line Nikon scanner instead? 

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!

[logan2z]

I've been following this thread closely as I've been waffling back and forth for months about buying a digital camera/macro lens (plus copy stand, negative holder, etc) in order to digitize my negatives with a camera, or buy a better dedicated film scanner like the Plustek.  I currently use an Epson flatbed and really don't like the quality of my 35mm scans so I need to do something.  I don't already own a digital camera (I shoot film exclusively) so I don't really want to purchase a digital setup just for digitizing my negatives.  Yes, that would give me a digital camera which I would probably find some use for, but it's hard to justify the cost if it's likely to end up as a dedicated film scanner. 

Long story short, I just ordered the Plustek and it'll be here in a couple of days.  I'll give it a shot and see if it significantly betters my Epson.  If it doesn't then I'll return it and continue looking for a camera scanning solution.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[madNbad]

2 hours ago, logan2z said:

I've been following this thread closely as I've been waffling back and forth for months about buying a digital camera/macro lens (plus copy stand, negative holder, etc) in order to digitize my negatives with a camera, or buy a better dedicated film scanner like the Plustek.  I currently use an Epson flatbed and really don't like the quality of my 35mm scans so I need to do something.  I don't already own a digital camera (I shoot film exclusively) so I don't really want to purchase a digital setup just for digitizing my negatives.  Yes, that would give me a digital camera which I would probably find some use for, but it's hard to justify the cost if it's likely to end up as a dedicated film scanner. 

Long story short, I just ordered the Plustek and it'll be here in a couple of days.  I'll give it a shot and see if it significantly betters my Epson.  If it doesn't then I'll return it and continue looking for a camera scanning solution.

The Plustek will be fine. The Silverfast software has a bit of a learning curve but will give you good results. I didn’t own a “real” digital camera before making the move away from the Plustek. I bought a Sony 5600 for my wife and I had a 55 2.8 Micro-Nikkor on hand so the camera scanning started there. If you don’t already own a digital camera, there is no reason to buy one just for scanning. 
The Plustek doesn’t take up much desk space and being new, will work with a variety of computers.