A good scanner to print from

[kanzlr]

for 35mm only I would get a Reflecta / Pacific Image RPS 7200, for 120 the Plustek OpticFilm 120 (this is what I did). I print A3+ on an Epson printer regularly from 35mm, and the details are all there.

 

[rjstep3]

for 35mm only I would get a Reflecta / Pacific Image RPS 7200, for 120 the Plustek OpticFilm 120 (this is what I did). I print A3+ on an Epson printer regularly from 35mm, and the details are all there.

I'd second that - I suppose it is making a virtue out of necessity, but scanning does make you select which pics are worth keeping, and which are for the bin. I can think of nothing worse than sitting with a scanner pushing 36 pics through from a roll one at a time.

rjstep3

 

[dasuess]

I'd second that - I suppose it is making a virtue out of necessity, but scanning does make you select which pics are worth keeping, and which are for the bin. I can think of nothing worse than sitting with a scanner pushing 36 pics through from a roll one at a time.

Exactly... I have a V600 (see my post earlier in this thread). I can scan two 35mm strips at a time (although I do just one at a time - not really any slower) and my though was that I would send out and get a wham-bang super-rez scan for those negs I wanted to print big. However, what I have found is that at least for me, the limiting factor in printing big (11x14, or 16x20) has more to do with camera technique and focusing accuracy than with the resolution of the scanner. I have printed Tri-X negs to 11x14 on my Epson R3000 that I think are wonderful and tack sharp at an appropriate viewing distance (I hate when people put nose marks on my prints ;-). Diligent PP also makes a difference (spotting, contrast, selective sharpening, etc).

 

[rjstep3]

I really agree with you.

I have spent a fortune on scanners, and wasted so much time trying to refine my scanning - but at the end of the day, you can't in practical terms see the difference at a standard size print. It only becomes relevant when you pixel peep, and then the shortcomings of whatever scanner you have become glaringly obvious (probably for the first time). When scanning, my own view is that time is better spent on getting the colours and contrast right - different skills are required, with more noticeable results.

Moreover, with a really large print, you are not going to approach it with a magnifying glass, so get used to the idea of that lack of sharpness that film has and digital no longer has. If the OP really wants tack sharpness, he'd better spend his money on a digital camera.

I actually enjoy scanning - for me, it is part of the creative process, I get to work on an image and make something of it. I like that. But I tend not to think of sharpness any longer, more colour, balance, contrast - these things make an image more than sharpness.

I too have an Epson R3000, it's beautiful, and amply repays the time and effort spent on taking, scanning and doing the PP on an image.

rjstep3

 

[Wenge]

Just ordered the Primefilm XE for 35mm last week (still en route).

For 120 film I decided to pass on the Plustek to replace my Epson 4870. Over the past few days I've been reading posts here and elsewhere from those who've used dslr's to replace scanners, and indeed after a few tries found first my EP5 and then (better) Nex7 with Nikkor 55/2.8 ais works better for 120 b&w film for me (6x4.5 exposures). Color negatives will need some work to get right, but for clean b&w and color transparencies it's faster/easier than the scanner with the simple copy-rig I put together.

Comparison of Epson 4870 flatbed (left) Nex7 (right), 100% crops straight from scanner (tif) and camera (raw/acr); no sharpening on either:

 

[A Y]

One helpful thing I've found for camera scanning is to hook up a monitor to the camera's video output. It really makes focusing and framing much easier and more pleasant. I have an old 24-inch widescreen monitor connected to my NEX-5N's HDMI port, and it works great.

I also scanned some 35mm Acros 100 yesterday with the NEX, and they looked great. I never thought I'd say that about 35mm film, but I'm very happy with how the 100 speed film turned out (as compared to Neopan or Portra 400).

Wenge, I'd love to hear about your experiences with the XE. I just received a Pakon 135+ from AAA today ...

 

[Wenge]

Thanks for that monitor tip; sounds like a good idea and will try it. Am finding the yellow focus-peaking on medium is pretty good viewing through the magnified evf but the monitor sounds good.

I'll post a couple samples once I get the XE figured out after it arrives.

 

[Noll]

Using a dslr/mirrorless camera body with a macro is a fine option for black and white. E6 can be good too (though color accuracy is a challenge), but not so easy on c41. It can be done on print film, but is hard to get it looking right.

If most of what you do is 35mm black and white, then I would say get yourself a 16mp m43 body, a good macro lens (I use an OM 50mm f3.5 macro and it's quite good and under $50), a tripod, and a light source (light box or a tablet). This can all be had for under $300 depending how you source it.

The reason I suggest m43 over other formats is that it is a "tele-centric" system. A 16mp m43 sensor magnifies twice as much as a 16mp aps-c sensor - or four times as much as a 16mp full-frame sensor at equivalent reproduction ratios while still retaining decent output at base iso. With 16mp on micro-4/3, at full 1:1 I'm pushing 6500 dpi with pretty good sharpness throughout. Tradeoff being that you then need to stitch 4 or more images together afterward, and have very good technique to ensure flatness.

If interested in pursuing this option, I posted a thread with results here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031
and also have many examples posted on flickr in this set and in others: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68243197@N04/sets/72157633582603921/

 

[froyd]

The OP's question is a very good one, and one that is not often addressed in the context of scanner discussions. You often read of scanners being lambasted for their lack of detail on screen at high magnification, but to some users (me, for one) the end game is a digital print.

What Id' like to see is not 100% crops of scans, but scans of prints from scans. Or at least detailed descriptions of how well the prints hold up. For instance, with an 11x14 (~28x35.5cm) print as the final goal, would there be much difference between a Plustek 8xxxx, a Reflecta X-something, an Epson v600-700-750, a Pakon?

I don't have a scanner, but I wonder if the print (on a good quality printer, e.g. Epson 3800) would obfuscate many of the differences for that class of scanners.

 

[whited3]

Using a dslr/mirrorless camera body with a macro is a fine option for black and white. E6 can be good too (though color accuracy is a challenge), but not so easy on c41. It can be done on print film, but is hard to get it looking right.

I can't remember if I've shared this before, but I've found the main issue with c-41 is the orange base; i.e. RGB curves are so skewed that fixing color in post produces noisy results due to so much correction. Edit: not just noisy... colors just don't end up looking natural.

So, I dslr scan c-41 negatives back-lit with any good light source bounced off a royal blue background. In reality that = window light bouncing off a blue folder I i had kicking around. Results are MUCH better this way.

 

[A Y]

I just got my Pakon 135+ running last night, and will be printing from one of my C41 negatives, probably not at too large a size (because the person who wants the print doesn't want anything larger than letter size).

The scanner looks very promising so far, and its C41 conversion is just amazing. Even if you output raw and do the inversion yourself, the blue channel signal is very high, compared to a DSLR scan against a neutral light table, so it's very easy to get good results with just Photoshop's inversion, and auto levels in the Curves adjustment layer.

froyd makes a good point about printing. I've printed from stitched scans from the NEX-5N of 6x6 and 6x9 negs at fairly large sizes, and I've printed from a native digital image from the 5N at big sizes (24x36), and have not found myself wanting much from either. The fact that the 5N's native sensor can print easily to 24x36 means that one probably doesn't have to stitch negative scans --- you can just use a single shot.

Of course, this depends on your subject. Many of mine did not have a lot of high frequency detail, but had large swatches of color and light, so tonality was much more important to me than resolution.

(The following two images are the digital files, not scans of the prints!)

From a stitch of 6 images on the order of maybe 40 Mpixels, printed at 13x19 (Fuji GW690III, Acros 100 pushed to 400, Rodinal 1+50):



A digital photo shot with the 5N (with an old Helios 44-2), printed at 24x36:

 

[van_d]

^ I don't have any problems with scanning medium format. The resolution I get from it seems plenty with my V600. It's just 35mm where I have some issues.

In other news, my second batch of prints-from-scans are done but I was unable to pick them up today. Will let you guys know how that goes when I do pick them up.

I really agree with you.

I have spent a fortune on scanners, and wasted so much time trying to refine my scanning - but at the end of the day, you can't in practical terms see the difference at a standard size print. It only becomes relevant when you pixel peep, and then the shortcomings of whatever scanner you have become glaringly obvious (probably for the first time). When scanning, my own view is that time is better spent on getting the colours and contrast right - different skills are required, with more noticeable results.

Moreover, with a really large print, you are not going to approach it with a magnifying glass, so get used to the idea of that lack of sharpness that film has and digital no longer has. If the OP really wants tack sharpness, he'd better spend his money on a digital camera.

I actually enjoy scanning - for me, it is part of the creative process, I get to work on an image and make something of it. I like that. But I tend not to think of sharpness any longer, more colour, balance, contrast - these things make an image more than sharpness.

I too have an Epson R3000, it's beautiful, and amply repays the time and effort spent on taking, scanning and doing the PP on an image.

rjstep3

Again, it isn't sharpness that's the issue here, it's easily being able to make out pixels from a mere 8x10 print. I know if sharpness is the issue, its generally because my photo is blurry or out of focus. I do have issues with sharpness at high DPI on my V600, but not at 3200DPI.

The OP's question is a very good one, and one that is not often addressed in the context of scanner discussions. You often read of scanners being lambasted for their lack of detail on screen at high magnification, but to some users (me, for one) the end game is a digital print.

What Id' like to see is not 100% crops of scans, but scans of prints from scans. Or at least detailed descriptions of how well the prints hold up. For instance, with an 11x14 (~28x35.5cm) print as the final goal, would there be much difference between a Plustek 8xxxx, a Reflecta X-something, an Epson v600-700-750, a Pakon?

I don't have a scanner, but I wonder if the print (on a good quality printer, e.g. Epson 3800) would obfuscate many of the differences for that class of scanners.

I agree, that would be a great comparison. You see people scanning their darkroom prints, why not their prints-from-scans?

 

[van_d]

Prints were picked up and they seem fine, so hopefully that can buy me some time before I need to invest in a stronger 35mm scanner. When I do make the transition, I'm still unsure over Plustek or Pacific Image...I really like what I see in the Plustek 120 thread...are the 35mm only models similar in quality?

 

[Michalm]

Prints were picked up and they seem fine, so hopefully that can buy me some time before I need to invest in a stronger 35mm scanner. When I do make the transition, I'm still unsure over Plustek or Pacific Image...I really like what I see in the Plustek 120 thread...are the 35mm only models similar in quality?

Unfortunately they are not , 35 mm Plustek scanners lack 4.0 dynamic range of the 120 model and offer 3.5 instead , while Pacific Image offers around 3.8 plus same effective resolution /slower file .

 

[HuubL]

The issue I'm having though isn't to do with things being in focus, though, it's just poor resolution.

Here is one of the more problematic photos. IIRC it was at 3200dpi, if not higher, and scanned on my V500 and rescanning on my V600 exhibits the same problems.


Full size.

What's exactly your problem here...?

 

[van_d]

^ If you look closely, it's coarse and pixel-y.

Unfortunately they are not , 35 mm Plustek scanners lack 4.0 dynamic range of the 120 model and offer 3.5 instead , while Pacific Image offers around 3.8 plus same effective resolution /slower file .

Is that really enough to make much of a difference, though? 3.8 is pretty close, especially because it's even cheaper than the 35mm Plusteks!

 

[thegman]

^ If you look closely, it's coarse and pixel-y.



Is that really enough to make much of a difference, though? 3.8 is pretty close, especially because it's even cheaper than the 35mm Plusteks!

You'll always be able to find someone who thinks it makes a difference, just like you'll find someone who thinks 8MP is so much better than 6MP.

For me, no, I doubt anyone could ever tell the difference between a scan on a 3.8 DMAX scanner or a 4.0.

The only place I've noticed my V700 not be able to get the results I wanted was on a badly underexposed slide film. I can see the detail holding it up to the light, but the V700 just could not see the shadows at the same time as the highlights. Perhaps a drum scanner with better DMAX capability could, I don't know.

I think for well exposed slides, or negatives, it's fine.

I fully expect a Plustek to be good enough for 99.999% of all of our negatives/slides.

 

[froyd]

Prints were picked up and they seem fine, so hopefully that can buy me some time before I need to invest in a stronger 35mm scanner. When I do make the transition, I'm still unsure over Plustek or Pacific Image...I really like what I see in the Plustek 120 thread...are the 35mm only models similar in quality?

These were the prints from the 500 or the 600? Are they prints from the image you posted in this thread?

 

[Wenge]

To follow-up earlier in the post, I've been trying out the Pacific Image Primefilm XE over the past few days. Of course it's not close to a drum, but for small/medium prints it does a decent job imo for the price US $279 and I'm happy with the scans & prints. More time is needed with it to see if I can coax out any dust/scratch removal--the scanner's "MagicTouch" enabled doesn't work for me so far as I've tried it.

Hard to know the actual measured resolution w/o a USAF chart, but it sure is a nice improvement over my dated Canoscan 2710.

I also made a couple decent prints with Epson 3880 at A4 (8x10"). And at A3/12x16 it's still not bad imo. (am curious now to try some Tri-x shot with an M lens).

Should also mention my Nex7 +Nikkor 60/2.8 afd macro yields nearly identical detail at 6000 pixels across. Haven't decided yet to keep the scanner because of this since I don't print large.

First image is direct from scanner downsized for web (no pp), 2nd one is a print shot with a GXR in the lightbox. followed by 100% crops of the scan.

I shot this ~12yrs ago with a Nikon N50 +35-80D with cheap Kodak Gold/200. No sharpening applied in Silverfast or post, only downsized for web ...Mark

Epson 3880 ABW-warm setting, VFA (actual print shows better detail)

full crops from original 8000dpi scan/no sharpening (click/enlarge to 100%). 8000 or 10,000dpi yielded similar results.

 

[rjstep3]

I'm not a great one for steam trains, but that is a really great shot of a venerable old monster!

rjstep3