why7
Newbie
I'm finally just about to buy a scanner (been dreaming of it for quite a while now), and have been searching high and low to find one that would do for me, but I haven't been able to find the exact answer to my questions ... So now I'm trying to form the question as well as possible, and hoping someone might be able to help me decide. I do not really know a lot about technology, so, please, bear with me. 
Here it goes ...
Until now, I've been borrowing an improvised "scanner" from a friend (a box with milky(?) glass, two flash units, and a macro 1:1 lens) from a friend, which gives great results (I shot the negatives with my D700). But since I shoot quite a lot of rolls, I want something of my own. I don't have the will of putting a setup like this together myself, nor do I want to spend a 1000 euro for a macro lens just for scanning.
I want a scanner that would produce scans good enough for publishing (approx. up to 20x30 cm, I don't need more). Almost exclusively, I shoot B&W 35mm film.
I had a chance of trying Canoscan 8800 and 9000, and both have been a disappointment - probably also due to being a bit spoilt from using my friend's setup for scanning. The things that mainly bother me are:
1. Loosing a lot of detail in shadows and highlights. I am attaching a scanned photo that should kind of demonstrate of what my friends setup is capable of. Consider that when I was making a print of this photo, I had to expose the "candy" part approx. four times as much as the guy in the shadow - this is what I love about HP5 and TriX, they capture everything.
2. I cannot distinguish the grain in the scanned picture well - probably has to do with resolution?
From what I've seen, Nikon coolscan would be ideal for me, but my current budget is a bit low. I could wait and save up, but I have so many rolls waiting for scanning, and I can't wait no more. Another thing is that a flatbed scanner would also be useful for my wife (musicologist, lots of transcriptions to scan) - which kind of justifies the expense for her also.
Currently I'm looking into Epson V600 and V700, the latter being at the top of what my budget will currently allow me. I can get the V600 for 300 euro, and the V700 for 650 euro. Of course, if the V600 would meet my demands, I have no intention of spending twice as much for the V700.
I was afraid I would write a very long thread, I'm sorry for this ... But it's my first thread here.
Here it goes ...Until now, I've been borrowing an improvised "scanner" from a friend (a box with milky(?) glass, two flash units, and a macro 1:1 lens) from a friend, which gives great results (I shot the negatives with my D700). But since I shoot quite a lot of rolls, I want something of my own. I don't have the will of putting a setup like this together myself, nor do I want to spend a 1000 euro for a macro lens just for scanning.
I want a scanner that would produce scans good enough for publishing (approx. up to 20x30 cm, I don't need more). Almost exclusively, I shoot B&W 35mm film.
I had a chance of trying Canoscan 8800 and 9000, and both have been a disappointment - probably also due to being a bit spoilt from using my friend's setup for scanning. The things that mainly bother me are:
1. Loosing a lot of detail in shadows and highlights. I am attaching a scanned photo that should kind of demonstrate of what my friends setup is capable of. Consider that when I was making a print of this photo, I had to expose the "candy" part approx. four times as much as the guy in the shadow - this is what I love about HP5 and TriX, they capture everything.
2. I cannot distinguish the grain in the scanned picture well - probably has to do with resolution?
From what I've seen, Nikon coolscan would be ideal for me, but my current budget is a bit low. I could wait and save up, but I have so many rolls waiting for scanning, and I can't wait no more. Another thing is that a flatbed scanner would also be useful for my wife (musicologist, lots of transcriptions to scan) - which kind of justifies the expense for her also.
Currently I'm looking into Epson V600 and V700, the latter being at the top of what my budget will currently allow me. I can get the V600 for 300 euro, and the V700 for 650 euro. Of course, if the V600 would meet my demands, I have no intention of spending twice as much for the V700.
I was afraid I would write a very long thread, I'm sorry for this ... But it's my first thread here.
Attachments
Bill Clark
Veteran
Welcome to Rangefinder Forum.
Like you I'm just getting into scanning and will be checking your thread to read what others recommend.
For the last ten years, my work flow has been digital, from capture & process and mostly viewing as well, although prints are still sometimes used for viewing.
Don't know how good of a job this will do but I bought a Microtek Artix Scan M1 quite sometime ago, a flatbed scanner, thinking it may work, giving fine quality but I still will have the negatives/transperancies and I still use my darkroom to make prints although I now only make B&W prints from B&W negatives.
At any rate, welcome to the forum!
Like you I'm just getting into scanning and will be checking your thread to read what others recommend.
For the last ten years, my work flow has been digital, from capture & process and mostly viewing as well, although prints are still sometimes used for viewing.
Don't know how good of a job this will do but I bought a Microtek Artix Scan M1 quite sometime ago, a flatbed scanner, thinking it may work, giving fine quality but I still will have the negatives/transperancies and I still use my darkroom to make prints although I now only make B&W prints from B&W negatives.
At any rate, welcome to the forum!
mfogiel
Veteran
I think your wife can use any kind of flatbed, even one that costs 30 EUR second hand, while for you a flatbed for 35mm will not be very useful. Check the various Plustek scanners, it seems that some people like the results. Also, personally I would advise you to get Vuescan and learn how to get the best out of your negatives.
doolittle
Well-known
Between the V600 and V700, get the V700, you won't regret it. Bundled Epson scan software is reasonable and you can always get vuescan at a later stage. It would be a shame to only use it for 35mm, as it excels at 6x6 and higher. However I personally still find it preferable for 35mm over something like the Plustek 7x00 series, as you can scan multiple pictures in a row, without having to manually feed the scanner. For me the convenience overrides the marginal gain in scan quality (guess it depends on how the output you need).
Never Satisfied
Well-known
Hey, save up for a Neg scanner, they are worth spending the cash on.
Check the classifieds in an hour or so, I'm just about to list a Nikon 4000ED with the SA21 neg scanning adapter.
Andrew.
Check the classifieds in an hour or so, I'm just about to list a Nikon 4000ED with the SA21 neg scanning adapter.
Andrew.
notraces
Bob Smith
The V700 is a fantastic scanner. I've used one for a few years now. I had the Nikon 9000 and sold it. 90% of what I do these days is for the web. If I want a nice print, I'll either use an Imacon at the gallery where I make wet prints -- or -- make a wet print.
The V700 - and Epson scanning software -- is a fantastic choice. Check out my flickr stream - every MF image was scanned using the V700.
The V700 - and Epson scanning software -- is a fantastic choice. Check out my flickr stream - every MF image was scanned using the V700.
Dwig
Well-known
This is something that is always a challenge with long scale B&W images. It is also something that the v700 will handle better than the v600.
why7
Newbie
Hey,
Thanks for all the help. I'm leaning towards the V700, I guess ...
Just for fun ... Is there perhaps any dedicated film scanner in about 500 or 600 dollar range that would work better than the V700 for 35mm?
Cheers,
miha
Thanks for all the help. I'm leaning towards the V700, I guess ...
Just for fun ... Is there perhaps any dedicated film scanner in about 500 or 600 dollar range that would work better than the V700 for 35mm?
Cheers,
miha
maddoc
... likes film again.
I use my V700 from time to time for BW scans also for 135 film and for prints up to A3 size it is OK for me. My other scanner is a dedicated 35mm film-scanner (Coolscan 4000ED with SA-21 and SA-30 film-strip feeders) but that scanner shows it`s age ... quality is no more up to what it used to be but a possibly repair (switch of worn parts) is out of question here in Japan since there are no more spare parts available from Nikon (Japan).
If you go the V700 route make sure that your negatives are 100% flat. I recently bought a small piece of frosted glass (single side matte) to keep the film strips flat on the scanner glass-plate and scanned some 135 film this way (using the lower resolution lens).
It looks like this: (Delta3200, N-1, DD-X 1+4)
If you go the V700 route make sure that your negatives are 100% flat. I recently bought a small piece of frosted glass (single side matte) to keep the film strips flat on the scanner glass-plate and scanned some 135 film this way (using the lower resolution lens).
It looks like this: (Delta3200, N-1, DD-X 1+4)
why7
Newbie
Wow! This looks great. I just hope that grain on what I mostly use (HP5+, pushed to ISO 800) will be visible. =)
So, if no one changes my mind in the next day or so, the V700 will be my christmas present to myself.
Thanks for all the advice and opinions.
Cheers,
miha
So, if no one changes my mind in the next day or so, the V700 will be my christmas present to myself.
Thanks for all the advice and opinions.
Cheers,
miha
thegman
Veteran
The V700 is great, but if you're only shooting 35mm, then I'd look at the Plustek 35mm scanners, smaller and probably better for 35mm. If you're in any way considering medium format though (and you should be), then the V700 is outstanding.
Never Satisfied
Well-known
When purchasing a scanner for use on transparencies as opposed to reflected scanning, the DMAX of the scanner needs to be a major factor. The higher the DMAX rating, the more detail you will get from the shadows. The Minolta 5400 and 5400MkII had a DMAX of 4.8, Nikon scanners are 4.2 (from memory) and most flat bed scanners are only 3.2 or there abouts and will struggle get get all of the detail from the shadow areas of a dense 35mm neg, medium and large formats are less of a problem.
If you always make great negs, you wont have a problem, but you really need to consider this when making up your mind.
Cheers, Andrew.
If you always make great negs, you wont have a problem, but you really need to consider this when making up your mind.
Cheers, Andrew.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
If you only shoot 35mm get a Plustek.
For MF only; Canoscan 9000 with Betterscanning mount
For 35mm and MF Epson V700 / V750.
Don't bother with "Silverfast" software.... Vuescan for the Mac is the better solution.
For MF only; Canoscan 9000 with Betterscanning mount
For 35mm and MF Epson V700 / V750.
Don't bother with "Silverfast" software.... Vuescan for the Mac is the better solution.
why7
Newbie
The V700 specifications say it has 4Dmax. I have no idea how much this is, but if Coolscans only have a bit more, I guess, this should be enough.
I've been looking a bit into the Plustek scanners also. The 8200 seems to go for about 300 euro on ebay. This would mean that I could also throw in a cheaper flatbed for the wife ... But would this Plustek be any better than the Epson?
I've been looking a bit into the Plustek scanners also. The 8200 seems to go for about 300 euro on ebay. This would mean that I could also throw in a cheaper flatbed for the wife ... But would this Plustek be any better than the Epson?
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Hmm tough call. I think the dedicated 35mm film scanner will do a better job.
I use the Plustek 7600 for 35mm and a older Canoscan 8800 (with betterscanning holder) for MF.
I use the Plustek 7600 for 35mm and a older Canoscan 8800 (with betterscanning holder) for MF.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Canoscan 8800F scan 6x6
2012-11-01-05 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
Plustek 35mm scan:
2012-08-26-10 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
2012-11-01-05 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
Plustek 35mm scan:
2012-08-26-10 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
thegman
Veteran
For 35mm, internet lore would say the Plustek will be sharper than the V700. In reality though, you can find examples which "prove" that one is better than the other. If I was only shooting 35mm, I'd get the Plustek, but the V700 is the more flexible machine.
countmypixels
Newbie
I've been looking into this too. The Reflecta ProScan 7200 gets a good review here: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan7200.html
It seems this scanner also sells under the name Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7200u which currently sells for $US 220 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...u&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search
There are a couple only of positive reviews and I noticed some negative reviews of earlier products same brand on Amazon so am a little wary/confused. Obviously the price is quite a bit less than say an Epson V750 which makes me even more suspicious.
I noticed the review by ScanDig mentions a hires file size of around 14 million pixels. I'm finding it hard to get my head around this number as I can get higher res from my Nex5N without the cost/hassle of scanning film. Notwithstanding this, I am impressed with many of the images I see posted on Flickr and RFF etc. made using old film cameras and scanning (particularly MF film). Am I just reacting to the different 'look' of film scans v digital given that most if not all of these images have been downsized for the web anyway?
There is an interesting post elsewhere on RFF (just don't have the link ATM) discussing why use film/scan at all given the quality of digital these days. It seems the main reasons relate to: a) fun of using classic cameras, b) fun with film & developing, and c) higher quality that can be achieved with MF. But if your scanner costs Sub-$1K how can the digital files produced from larger negs be any better than from 35mm? I guess the starting source is larger/has more definition.
Don't get me wrong...I am quite interested in getting back into film if it means I canget better IQ than I currently can achieve using digital. Just not convinced that this would be the case without for example shooting MF film & outsourcing the scanning to a lab? Am I missing something here?
As an adjunct I would like to know what resolution files a flatbed scanner like the Epson V750 produces from 120 film negs and just how much these files have to be downsized before uploading to the web. Ken Rockwell talks about producing MF film scans around 80MP in size but he is using a rather expensive Minolta Multi Pro to produce these files.
I hope I haven't sidetracked this post but these issues can affect specifics such as what scanner to purchase e.g. 35mm film scanner only versus a more versatile flatbed.
PS. Rogier's scan of the 6x6 above looks great but, again, his Flickr file has been seriously downsized making it impossible for me to judge the benefits of this technique/approach. No personal criticism intended.
It seems this scanner also sells under the name Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7200u which currently sells for $US 220 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...u&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search
There are a couple only of positive reviews and I noticed some negative reviews of earlier products same brand on Amazon so am a little wary/confused. Obviously the price is quite a bit less than say an Epson V750 which makes me even more suspicious.
I noticed the review by ScanDig mentions a hires file size of around 14 million pixels. I'm finding it hard to get my head around this number as I can get higher res from my Nex5N without the cost/hassle of scanning film. Notwithstanding this, I am impressed with many of the images I see posted on Flickr and RFF etc. made using old film cameras and scanning (particularly MF film). Am I just reacting to the different 'look' of film scans v digital given that most if not all of these images have been downsized for the web anyway?
There is an interesting post elsewhere on RFF (just don't have the link ATM) discussing why use film/scan at all given the quality of digital these days. It seems the main reasons relate to: a) fun of using classic cameras, b) fun with film & developing, and c) higher quality that can be achieved with MF. But if your scanner costs Sub-$1K how can the digital files produced from larger negs be any better than from 35mm? I guess the starting source is larger/has more definition.
Don't get me wrong...I am quite interested in getting back into film if it means I canget better IQ than I currently can achieve using digital. Just not convinced that this would be the case without for example shooting MF film & outsourcing the scanning to a lab? Am I missing something here?
As an adjunct I would like to know what resolution files a flatbed scanner like the Epson V750 produces from 120 film negs and just how much these files have to be downsized before uploading to the web. Ken Rockwell talks about producing MF film scans around 80MP in size but he is using a rather expensive Minolta Multi Pro to produce these files.
I hope I haven't sidetracked this post but these issues can affect specifics such as what scanner to purchase e.g. 35mm film scanner only versus a more versatile flatbed.
PS. Rogier's scan of the 6x6 above looks great but, again, his Flickr file has been seriously downsized making it impossible for me to judge the benefits of this technique/approach. No personal criticism intended.
venchka
Veteran
My advice. Which is worth exactly the same as all the advice above: What you paid for it.
For your everyday needs. Epson V700. Betterscanning holders if you find a need for them.
For the 1 in 100/1 in 1,000/1 in 1,000,000 image for which the Epson is not good enough: Pay for a drum scan.
Next question?
Wayne
ps: I just read the question about size. I routinely scan 6x7 negatives at 2400 dpi which yields 33-34 mp images and are about 50 megabytes TIFF on the hard drive. I post process in Lightroom. I export JPEG files for the web which are 1600 pixels on the long side (900 for verticals) at 133 dpi. I let the software worry about figuring all of that stuff out. Here is a recent example. 3 TIFF files at 33 megapixels each exported as a JPEG print file from Lightroom. Click the small image for the 1600 pixel JPEG.
Does that answer your question?
Wayne
For your everyday needs. Epson V700. Betterscanning holders if you find a need for them.
For the 1 in 100/1 in 1,000/1 in 1,000,000 image for which the Epson is not good enough: Pay for a drum scan.
Next question?
Wayne
ps: I just read the question about size. I routinely scan 6x7 negatives at 2400 dpi which yields 33-34 mp images and are about 50 megabytes TIFF on the hard drive. I post process in Lightroom. I export JPEG files for the web which are 1600 pixels on the long side (900 for verticals) at 133 dpi. I let the software worry about figuring all of that stuff out. Here is a recent example. 3 TIFF files at 33 megapixels each exported as a JPEG print file from Lightroom. Click the small image for the 1600 pixel JPEG.
Does that answer your question?
Wayne
countmypixels
Newbie
Ahhh, thank you Wayne ...the fog is beginning to clear with those numbers and suggestions you have posted.