Are Plustek products any good?

[jsrockit]

I don't use film that often, but I have about 10-11 rolls sitting around that need developing and scanning (and will have more in the future). Developing is cheap in NYC... however, scanning is not and the scans generally suck here in NYC. So, I was thinking that for the amount of money I'd spend on getting these rolls scanned by a third party, I can buy a cheap Plustek and scan the stuff myself. However, I'm not sure if the Plustek stuff is half way decent or not. Any thoughts?

 

[finguanzo]

Search on flickr, there are people using them, the newer mac compatible ones, not sure on model #'s, that say they are good and cheaper than most..

 

[ChipMcD]

Plustek 7600i-AI review

Plustek 7600i-AI review

Luminous Landscape has a very recent review here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml

Also, there is a thread about this scanner in the "Scanner" forum on this site.

Good luck.

 

[David_Manning]

I like mine, a lot. I'm coming from a flatbed Epson 4990, though...so I would expect it would be better. I went with a 7600i SE.

Software is key, however. Still mulling that over in my mind. Let me know if you'd like to see some examples.

 

[DNG]

I have a Plustek 7300 with Silverfast SE plus. I find my scans are very good. I scan at 5000dpi (85-100mb tiff size). And I also use the Multible scan option, I use 4 or 8 scans per file. Helps a lot in holding down grain on faster films. I do not use the feature for scratch removal or the their version of ICE.... I also scan my BW negs a little low in contrast.. just a little...

I find the results fine. and it holds fine detail really well.
For $250.00 to $400.00 (depending on model and software package), I find them a good alternative to a Nikon Coolscan, that has some advantages, but, I don't think for the non professional, the cost is justified.

You can also buy other scanning software if you prefer their options and GUI.

I vote on the Plustek 7500 with the Silverfast Ai package... it has HDR and and few other options you may want.

Here are a few scanned images of late:

 

[ndnik]

yes

yes

I use the 7600. For most practical purposes, I find the Plustek gives comparable results to the Nikon scanners (negatives and b&w; for slides, the Nikon still might have the edge due to the higher Dmax.) The Plustek is extremely good value for the money. You will find similar statements in other threads on this site as well as in many other reviews you can easily google up.

On the down side, there is not automatic film feed for the Plusteks. You have to sit there and scan images one by one.

I use Vuescan, not the bundled Silverfast. The Silverfast user interface drives me nuts. The Vuescan one is just a slight bit less bad.

 

[Gradskater]

I use a plustek 7300 on a mac with silverfast. Hundreds of scans done, and no problems with the hardware. software is bit buggy, though. All of the color and black and white from the last year on my flickr page are scanned with the plustek. I am quite happy with it.

 

[Tompas]

I can wholeheartedly recommend the 7600i film scanner (but please keep in mind it's not for mass scanning). Don't know any other Plustek stuff.

 

[randomm]

Everything in my gallery (aside from couple of frames shot with E-PL1) is scanned with 7500i. I'm liking mine so far.

 

[David_Manning]

No wet scans on the 7600i.

 

[mathomas]

First, a pretty good, reasonably hi-res dev/scan at my local family-owned lab runs $11 and takes very little of my time, except for final adjustments of the resulting files. You might consider that, and try to find a lab that will do it that cheaply, for your first batch of 10 rolls.

If you really want to scan film in the long run, I have the Plustek 7300 and like it just fine. Very good value for the money. I've used both the bundled SilverFast and VueScan software. Both are clunky as hell, for different reasons, but they get the job done. Lately I'm back to using SilverFast, as I seem to have better results with troubled negatives (say, really thick ones). Not sure why the software should matter, as both packages do multi-exposure, but it does make a difference. I wish PlusTek would come out with a 120 film scanner. We can always dream.

I must say, every time I develop a roll of film and then scan it, I laugh at the common assertion that film "takes less time" than digital. It certainly takes a lot of my time to process film, but I mostly enjoy the process, so it's OK, and it's almost free after the initial investments.

Here's a link to some of my negs scanned with the 7300 (and plenty of PP by me):

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=76198982@N00&q=rodinal&m=text

 

[btgc]

Are they built to last?

Watching prices for how much are sold 10 y.o. film scanners I wonder if it's wise if I can live with manual feed. For same money one can buy new Plustek scanner.
I use old enough cameras, probably it's better not to tie myself with old scanner.

 

[varjag]

When I was buying mine in 2006, the first one was dead out of the box. The replacement was fine and performed many thousands of scans to the day.

 

[jsrockit]

First, a pretty good, reasonably hi-res dev/scan at my local family-owned lab runs $11 and takes very little of my time, except for final adjustments of the resulting files. You might consider that, and try to find a lab that will do it that cheaply, for your first batch of 10 rolls.

As I've said, I'm not happy with local scanning. I've tried 10 different NYC labs, some pro and some cheap and they all suck at scanning. The best of the bunch for developing and scanning will be like $18 total. I'm thinking it just makes sense to buy a scanner for just a little more cash and then I can just scan whatever I want and get things developed cheap. I used film for many, many years in the 90s and this would also allow me to scan some of that stuff too. So, really, the 10 rolls are just the tip of the iceberg.