Plustek vs camera "scanning"

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, blackdot said:

I deleted all the tests shots a while back. It's easy to recreate, though. Just shoot something at night so that the negs are thin, especially color negs. You will have orange haze in the scan, especially toward the right side where the thumb indentation is. You won't notice it with fully exposed daylight negs, which is what the manufacturer is counting on you doing (they told me this). That's a pretty harsh restriction. If you search around online, you'll see many others have confirmed this, so it isn't just me. I'll also add that this issue was more apparent with Portra 400 than other films.

Under exposed portra 400 tends to have a strong orange cast. Surely if the issue was that bad it would not depend on the film (beside its thickness maybe). 

Anyway, thanks for sharing. I have hundreds of scans made with the unit. Sounds like a non-issue for me at all. 

Good luck to the OP. Whichever way you decide go  home scanning is really worthwhile!

[250swb]

9 hours ago, blackdot said:

I deleted all the tests shots a while back. It's easy to recreate, though. Just shoot something at night so that the negs are thin, especially color negs. You will have orange haze in the scan, especially toward the right side where the thumb indentation is. You won't notice it with fully exposed daylight negs, which is what the manufacturer is counting on you doing (they told me this). That's a pretty harsh restriction. If you search around online, you'll see many others have confirmed this, so it isn't just me. I'll also add that this issue was more apparent with Portra 400 than other films.

Why not also blame Kodak for the thin negs as well if you are blaming everybody except yourself? Being able to photograph the film base colour because of a lack of density is nothing to do with the Valoi, but perhaps if you post an example somebody could show you how to correct the colour cast of an under exposed negative.

[blackdot]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Why not also blame Kodak for the thin negs as well if you are blaming everybody except yourself? Being able to photograph the film base colour because of a lack of density is nothing to do with the Valoi, but perhaps if you post an example somebody could show you how to correct the colour cast of an under exposed negative.

Slow down there, internet blowhard. I’ve been scanning film for 25 years and know what I’m doing. The Valoi is a flawed design. There is no straightforward correction for a localized lack of density due to an inadequate light source. 

I also coordinated with Valoi to take a series of test shots with both the original and a replacement light source, and they basically said it could not be used with negs that thin. 

You also conveniently skipped the fact that it works fine when the light source is removed and a larger panel is used in its place. 

[250swb]

26 minutes ago, blackdot said:

Slow down there, internet blowhard. I’ve been scanning film for 25 years and know what I’m doing.

A dedicated film scanner will have similar problems with a thin negative, it is something that has been known about for all of your 25 years experience (🙄). But who creates the thin negative in the first place and why should the manufacturer of a convenience device anticipate unusable negatives in their design? Night photography with film has it's challenges and I hardly think it's Valoi's fault if they don't solve them for you.

Perhaps you have problems with DR when copying a night shot, perhaps using a different light source solves it, but perhaps other people on this forum don't have problems with DR in the first place?

Edited March 12, 2024 by 250swb

[blackdot]

13 minutes ago, 250swb said:

A dedicated film scanner will have similar problems with a thin negative, it is something that has been known about for all of your 25 years experience (🙄). But who creates the thin negative in the first place and why should the manufacturer of a convenience device anticipate unusable negatives in their design? Night photography with film has it's challenges and I hardly think it's Valoi's fault if they don't solve them for you. 

A dedicated film scanner does not create a thin area in the shape of a Valoi finger cutout. I’m not talking about a wide area color cast. 

Thin negs are also not “wrong” (you and Valoi apparently disagree, which is fine so long as we’re all up front about it). The same thin negs used with a Viltrox panel and Valoi-sans-lamp, Viltrox panel plus Nikon Es-2, and a cheap Plustek scanner all came out just fine. The unevenness is specific to the easy35 and its included light source. And the replacement lamp they graciously sent me. 

Edited March 12, 2024 by blackdot

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

A dedicated film scanner will have similar problems with a thin negative, it is something that has been known about for all of your 25 years experience

I fear to interrupt a classic internet misunderstanding, but it sounds like the Valoi light source casts a shadow on part of the film, which is most apparent when scanning thin originals (negs or chromes, I suppose).

In other words, the problem isn't thin negatives. The problem is uneven lighting on your negatives. Am I correct?

A picture would help, of course.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't keep track anymore, if @blackdot you aren't now talking about a wide area colour cast why did you say "You will have orange haze in the scan, especially toward the right side where the thumb indentation is." which indicates a that it is indeed an all over cast but more pronounced toward the edge. I'll leave it with you.

Edited March 12, 2024 by 250swb

[250swb]

3 minutes ago, BernardC said:

 

In other words, the problem isn't thin negatives. The problem is uneven lighting on your negatives. Am I correct?

 

The words 'thin negative' was definitely used in relation to night photos and I only responded to that observation, but it's like trying to grasp fog.

[blackdot]

12 minutes ago, BernardC said:

I fear to interrupt a classic internet misunderstanding, but it sounds like the Valoi light source casts a shadow on part of the film, which is most apparent when scanning thin originals (negs or chromes, I suppose).

In other words, the problem isn't thin negatives. The problem is uneven lighting on your negatives. Am I correct?

A picture would help, of course.

That’s correct   

[Aryel]

1 hour ago, blackdot said:

That’s correct   

No it is not 😝

Let’s just agree to disagree 

Edited March 12, 2024 by Aryel

[blackdot]

2 hours ago, Aryel said:

No it is not 😝

Let’s just agree to disagree 

It’s not subjective just because you haven’t discovered it yet. 

[pgk]

I don't know what you are all arguing about. My set up is far more versatile and cost me about £130 excluding macro lens and adapter (which may well be needed as well anyway). Even adding in a copy stand isn't vastly costly and icreases versatility even more. I can 'scan' from 35mm to 10" x 8" if I want and am limited by the neg/slide size as I have an A4 lightbox. I've added a thin sheet of translucent perspex to ensure diffusion is as good as it can be as I have found this often helps - also a cheap soultion.

[TomB_tx]

Just to show an example of Epson 850 Pro scans - I've been comparing film types for the way I shoot now. Shot a 24 exp roll of Delta 400 this morning, processed in DD-x, loaded all 24 into the Epson, set to 2400dpi 16-bit grey scale direct to jpg, started it scanning while I had lunch. Nothing special, just "film test" snapshots around the house. Here's an example, doing nothing in adjustments, so compares to the old "drugstore processing" only faster and easier.

I really like the Delta 400 in DD-x. Lies flatter than TriX or TMax400 and easier to scan.

Leica M5, Nokton 50 1.5 (ver1 -ltm)

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!