best option in 2016 for scanning an entire roll of B&W

[yossarian123]

So I was finally able to make a job switch - working in the boring suburbs and now I'm working on Michigan Avenue. Lots and lots of street photography so I'm shooting more lately.

Unfortunately, the suburb commute plus the high pressure and long hours at my job means that I barely have enough time for developing and almost zero time for scanning.

I'm looking for some good options (price, convenience, repair-ability, scan quality) that will let me just take the entire roll and run it through a scanner. If there are a few frames that are worthy of better scans then I can mark those and do a more thorough scan later. What are my options in these dark film days?

This has probably been asked before. Sorry in advance.

 

[splitimageview]

Pakon. Five minutes for a 36 exp roll...and plenty of resolution (3000x2000)

After owning almost all the Coolscans and even a Noritsu, nothing comes close...

 

[axiom]

Reflecta RPS 10M

 

[Tijmendal]

Pakon. Five minutes for a 36 exp roll...and plenty of resolution (3000x2000)

After owning almost all the Coolscans and even a Noritsu, nothing comes close...

The only legit answer.

 

[mod2001]

Reflecta RPS 10M

definetely, if higher resolution and more exact framing is needed as with the Pakon.

Yogi

 

[tvdpid]

DSLR-scan ...
Since I tried it, I put aside my Epson scanner ...
It is so much faster, so much better ...
One roll in 5 minutes ...

 

[mcfingon]

Agree. I use a D3300 Nikon and 40 micro lens. 1/500th second per scan at f8. Results below from Leica M3 with Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4 at f11 on Delta 100 in ID-11

 

[yanchep_mike]

Pakon. Five minutes for a 36 exp roll...and plenty of resolution (3000x2000)

After owning almost all the Coolscans and even a Noritsu, nothing comes close...

+1
Tried all the others, best and easiest to operate.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Pakon F135+ for sure.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I used to own a Coolscan and a Pakon, but a mirrorless camera, macro lens, copy stand, and film carrier from an enlarger have given me the cheapest and best results. Pakon is marginally faster, but it required me to run an obsolete operating system in VirtualBox on my Mac...more trouble than it was worth, ultimately.

 

[splitimageview]

Shooting negatives takes more effort as opposed to the Pakon, which only takes a bit of set up time, then it does the work on its own, unattended. It does use an obsolete operating system for the scan, but with vmware it's a simple matter of dragging the files over to the Mac.

Plus the Pakon is far faster when scanning color. The workflow of using a digital camera to scan color negs requires significant time removing the orange mask and getting decent color balance. This is trivial with the Pakon; there is a huge amount of Kodak color smarts built-in. No one knew color like Kodak...

B&W is definitely more streamlined of course.

Without the Pakon I probably would not be shooting film

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Agreed, I got the Pakon for Christmas for myself 5-6 years ago and it's saved film for me. From the time I opened the box, I was scanning in 45min. That included torrenting VMWare and a Windows XP key, installing everything, plugging the scanner in and starting my first roll.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Get two modern and known scanners. If you care about negatives, you'll have to archive them in sleeves. It means cutting. Cutted strips goes into not expensive flatbed for quick preview scan. Once strip is scanned at low resolution quickly, put it into sleeve with paper strip marking which frame is for high resolution scan for later.
If you want supported and working devices choose flatbed (quick scans) from Epson and dedicated for high res from Plustek.

Dark film days are only for lazy people these days, BTW. 🙂

 

[Nowhereman]

The posts above bring out most of the issues of convenience vs quality of using the Pakon, especially the convenience for color negative film. It seems to me that the Pakon is great as long you are looking to a quick scanning solution for minilab-type prints, or what used to be called "drugstore prints" — or, more commonly today, for files to post on the web.

However, if you're looking to print large prints, the Pakon is inadequate because it has a maximum resolution of only 3,000 x 2,000, or about 2,000 ppi, yielding a 6MB file. That is okay for a 4x6 inch print — and it'll work up to a 5x7 or probably even an 8x10 print. Dynamic range is another issue.

For someone that wants to make archival scans that may eventually be printed at say, 4x6 feet (100x150 cm) the Pakon is inadequate. Digitalizing with a full frame camera will yield results that can be made into large prints: in my case using the Leitz BEOON copy stand and the M-Monochrom or M9. As far as I can see, the dynamic range of the latter is close to the 4.2 of the Imacon Precision III used at 6,300 ppi and the resolution is also close to that.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

[kiemchacsu]

This was also the reason why I skipped the Pakon and took the cs5000.
I could not justify to spend $600 for a 6mpx scanner. With the same price I was lucky enough to grab the mentioned Nikon coolscan 5000.

The posts above bring out most of the issues of convenience vs quality of using the Pakon, especially the convenience for color negative film. It seems to me that the Pakon is great as long you are looking to a quick scanning solution for minilab-type prints, or what used to be called "drugstore prints" — or, more commonly today, for files to post on the web.



However, if you're looking to print large prints, the Pakon is inadequate because it has a maximum resolution of only 3,000 x 2,000, or about 2,000 ppi, yielding a 6MB file. That is okay for a 4x6 inch print — and it'll work up to a 5x7 or probably even an 8x10 print. Dynamic range is another issue.



For someone that wants to make archival scans that may eventually be printed at say, 4x6 feet (100x150 cm) the Pakon is inadequate. Digitalizing with a full frame camera will yield results that can be made into large prints: in my case using the Leitz BEOON copy stand and the M-Monochrom or M9. As far as I can see, the dynamic range of the latter is close to the 4.2 of the Imacon Precision III used at 6,300 ppi and the resolution is also close to that.



_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[taemo]

The posts above bring out most of the issues of convenience vs quality of using the Pakon, especially the convenience for color negative film. It seems to me that the Pakon is great as long you are looking to a quick scanning solution for minilab-type prints, or what used to be called "drugstore prints" — or, more commonly today, for files to post on the web.

However, if you're looking to print large prints, the Pakon is inadequate because it has a maximum resolution of only 3,000 x 2,000, or about 2,000 ppi, yielding a 6MB file. That is okay for a 4x6 inch print — and it'll work up to a 5x7 or probably even an 8x10 print. Dynamic range is another issue.

For someone that wants to make archival scans that may eventually be printed at say, 4x6 feet (100x150 cm) the Pakon is inadequate. Digitalizing with a full frame camera will yield results that can be made into large prints: in my case using the Leitz BEOON copy stand and the M-Monochrom or M9. As far as I can see, the dynamic range of the latter is close to the 4.2 of the Imacon Precision III used at 6,300 ppi and the resolution is also close to that.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

this.
i had a pakon and it was convenient, mini-lab type quality that you can use for sharing or printing 4x6, great for color negative too
however, for anything higher-res, you'll have to use something else.
TBH i don't miss it one bit.

my scanning process has switched now that I sold my pakon,
i take a digital contact print of a 36 roll then select the pictures I want to scan higher.
i then use a X-E2 with FD 50mm macro to 'scan' the picture.
my V700 cant match it in resolution IMO.
I still use my V700 for 120 and 4x5 but dont know for how much long.

 

[splitimageview]

I purchased a 24mp pro lab Noritsu and found the additional resolution to not be of any real value. Ditto with Coolscans...I've tried all of them. In effect the grain was the limiting factor. Resolution did not impact larger prints at all.

Use a larger negative instead. 🙂

 

[brennanphotoguy]

I printed more than a few 11x14 prints from my Pakon and they look great. Another friend has printed 16x20 and they were pushing it but you could have them done on canvas and they'll look fine.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

If you're looking for print sizes measured more in feet than inches then you might as well send the neg off for a drum scan anyways. And if you are lucky enough to afford something like the Imacon of any generation then this wouldn't be a discussion.

Also, if you're worried more about scanning a full roll at speed then you're probably not as worried about maximum resolution. Think of stuff like the Pakon as a way to get a good digital contact sheet with. Then use a big scanner as your "enlarger" for when you really want to maximize resolution.

 

[Nowhereman]

...Use a larger negative instead. 🙂

Not a solution for someone who likes the "35mm aesthetic." Though digital would be for the issue you raise. 😀

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine