Could use some low-cost 35mm only scanner handholding

[Ken Ford]

It's time that I bring some form of basic 35mm neg scanning in-house. I've been relying on local commercial minilabs (Target, Wolf and the like) and quite frankly the quality hasn't been great - especially when you consider the prices they charge. The part that kills me is how poorly they handle the negs, it's rare that I don't get film back without scratches.

So... I'm used to getting back 1272 x 1908 scans. These are of a sufficient size for web use, but not for printing much larger than 4x6, hardly worth the effort. I *think* I once read that I need 2400 x 3000 scans to do uncropped 8x10s at 300 DPI. How does this translate to the DPI spec used in marketing scanners?

As an example, there are several commonly available inexpensive 3600 DPI scanners on the market like the Veho VFS008 and ION PICS2SD. Are these type of scanners worth my time, taking into account that spending much more than what these go for is probably not an option for the moment? I might be able to stretch the budget to a 7600 DPI Plustek 7400, but it'd be tight. Otherwise I'll need to hold off a month or two.

For what it's worth I'd like to scan TX, I realize the dust reduction software isn't going to be of any help. I've been shooting BW400CN for a number of years and like it but am unsure if I want to try processing C41 here at home - but I'll consider it if I would gain enough by doing so.

Comments?

 

[mathomas]

...

So... I'm used to getting back 1272 x 1908 scans. These are of a sufficient size for web use, but not for printing much larger than 4x6, hardly worth the effort. I *think* I once read that I need 2400 x 3000 scans to do uncropped 8x10s at 300 DPI. How does this translate to the DPI spec used in marketing scanners?

As an example, there are several commonly available inexpensive 3600 DPI scanners on the market like the Veho VFS008 and ION PICS2SD. Are these type of scanners worth my time, taking into account that spending much more than what these go for is probably not an option for the moment? I might be able to stretch the budget to a 7600 DPI Plustek 7400, but it'd be tight. Otherwise I'll need to hold off a month or two.

For what it's worth I'd like to scan TX, I realize the dust reduction software isn't going to be of any help. I've been shooting BW400CN for a number of years and like it but am unsure if I want to try processing C41 here at home - but I'll consider it if I would gain enough by doing so.

Comments?

I use a Plustek 7300 and am perfectly satisfied with it, given the constraints (no multiple-frame/batch mode -- you have to feed it yourself). I've only scanned my home-developed B&W in it, and the results have been as good as, if not better than what I get from my lab (if only because I actually care about the results, and thus take more time).

I don't use any scratch or dust-removal feature(s). I prefer to do that in post. I do use multiple-exposure scans (2 passes).

Note that I've stopped scanning at high res (for me, over 1800dpi) for my "proofs". It's a waste of time and disk space until I know what I like. Regarding your DPI/printing question: I could swear I've printed out 1800dpi scans at 8x10" and they look great. But I mainly print 35mm for my 8x10" photo album(s), and not for framing.

Example scans:


Efke 25:

Efke 25

Tri-X @ EI 1250

Plus-X @ EI 400

 

[Ken Ford]

Mike, you make a good case for the Plustek - I'd be very happy with comparable results.

I have a suspicion that the cheaper ones I mentioned would be very disappointing.

 

[mathomas]

Mike, you make a good case for the Plustek - I'd be very happy with comparable results.

I have a suspicion that the cheaper ones I mentioned would be very disappointing.

Well, those are very small images, so they should look pretty good no matter what 🙂. Try looking at the larger images on my flickr site (follow the link in this post). I am pretty good about tagging stuff. For example, here is a search for my uploaded Tri-X shots:

Note, I still use lab processing/scanning for color, and for medium format (and there were a few rolls of 35mm B&W done at the lab, too), so be sure to read the notes I attach to all my uploaded photos (or look for this text in the upper right of the photo page: "This photo was taken on xxx using a Plustek OpticFilm 7300.").

Have fun!

 

[Ken Ford]

Even this small you get a good feel for the tonality. I'll traipse through your Flickr albums..

 

[Ducky]

Nasty Plug:
Check the classifieds. I have had very nice 5meg results from the Wolverine F2D listed there.

 

[mathomas]

Nasty Plug:
Check the classifieds. I have had very nice 5meg results from the Wolverine F2D listed there.

Yeah -- I was considering one of these to do "proofs". Has to be much faster than even low DPI scans with a real scanner.

 

[Ken Ford]

Nasty Plug:
Check the classifieds. I have had very nice 5meg results from the Wolverine F2D listed there.

That's actually what got me looking - but I don't think I'd be happy with a 1600 DPI scanner for long...

 

[venchka]

Epson. For service. For up to date drivers for 10 year old models. Epson clearance center for refurbs. From the 4990 onwards, hard to go wrong.

Check this out. Tri-X (Arista flavor) in Diafine even. Epson 4490. Beginning about 3-4 images down.

http://http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=296536

 

[venchka]

That's actually what got me looking - but I don't think I'd be happy with a 1600 DPI scanner for long...

For the most part, consumer scanners deliver actual real optical resolving numbers in the 1,600 to 2,100 range. The rest is software generated fluff. Unless you can afford a Nikon, Imacon, Creo, etc.

 

[venchka]

Epson Perfection 1680, circa 2001. 90/2.8 Elmarit-M. Kodachrome. Printed last week @ 300dpi and 6"x9" on my Canon iPF 5000. I could go bigger but my big paper hasn't arrived. Click images below and pixel peep.



4x5. Same scanner. I reckon this file could go wallpaper size.



Friends of mine have the 4990 & V700. Their scans are better than mine.

 

[Mcary]

It's time that I bring some form of basic 35mm neg scanning in-house.

I *think* I once read that I need 2400 x 3000 scans to do uncropped 8x10s at 300 DPI. How does this translate to the DPI spec used in marketing scanners?



Comments?

If you're scanning the full frame of the negative and then cropping from that in post to get to the 4x5 ratio (8x10 Print) from the 2x3 ratio (8x12 Print) of 35mm film. You'll want to scan at a minimum of about 2400PPI.

 

[ibcrewin]

I have the canoscan 8600F I picked up on sale a little over a year ago. It scans 35mm and 120. I'm still working on perfecting my workflow but here are two examples of 2400dpi scans. I import to photoshop through ps itself as monochrome positive, then invert.
Both tmax 100 in d76 1:1, you can seen all the dust and gunk from drying marks in the second one.

 

[damien.murphy]

This site provide good reviews and the real resolving capabilities of scanners: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

What Venchka says below is quite true, but only when speaking of flatbed scanners. Tests from the site above illustrate your Plustek 7600, for example, is capable of approx. 3200 dpi.

My Canon 8800F on the other hand has been found to be capable of 1600dpi. For my usage (web/ proofing scans), I scan at no more than 1200dpi which nets me a 1650x 1100 pixel scan.

As another poster stated, it sounds like you need something in the 2400 dpi range, which will give you a scan of approximately 3300x 2200 dpi.

It's a minefield out there, with regard to affordable scanners, since the exit of Minolta and Nikon from the field, so read every review you can.

One noteworthy point is that flatbeds will generally give you a soft scan in comparison to a dedicated negative scanner. This is borne out in the resolving power of scanners as tested, as well as peoples general experience.

For the most part, consumer scanners deliver actual real optical resolving numbers in the 1,600 to 2,100 range. The rest is software generated fluff. Unless you can afford a Nikon, Imacon, Creo, etc.

 

[venchka]

Folks,
Read the review that Damien linked to very carefully. I assure you that making 7200 DPI 48 bit scans will drive you BONKERS after two or three. Even 7200 DPI 16 bit scans will send you to the Funny Farm. Not to mention where you going to store those puppies?

By the way, if proper viewing distance is factored in, a good inkjet printer will deliver perfectly acceptable results at 175 DPI. If you don't wish to print full frame, 5x7 aspect ratio requires less cropping and looks nice.

Plus to the larger Epson scanners: Ability to load 24 35mm negatives. Scanning a single strip at a time would drive me bonkers. YMMV.

 

[damien.murphy]

Folks,
Read the review that Damien linked to very carefully. I assure you that making 7200 DPI 48 bit scans will drive you BONKERS after two or three. Even 7200 DPI 16 bit scans will send you to the Funny Farm. Not to mention where you going to store those puppies?

By the way, if proper viewing distance is factored in, a good inkjet printer will deliver perfectly acceptable results at 175 DPI. If you don't wish to print full frame, 5x7 aspect ratio requires less cropping and looks nice.

Plus to the larger Epson scanners: Ability to load 24 35mm negatives. Scanning a single strip at a time would drive me bonkers. YMMV.

I agree. The necessity to scan at 7200dpi, just to get a file with true resolution of approx. 3200 effecttive dpi, is a real killer. The Plustek is not alone in this facet, and many of the equivalently priced scanners are the same in this manner.

That said, how many people really need to scan every image on the roll at high res..

 

[hipsterdufus]

Another vote for Plustek. All that I know is that when I scan Tmax 100 at 3600 dpi on my Plustek 7300, I can see the individual grains on the negative. I don't know why I would want more detail than that!

 

[venchka]

I agree. The necessity to scan at 7200dpi, just to get a file with true resolution of approx. 3200 effecttive dpi, is a real killer. The Plustek is not alone in this facet, and many of the equivalently priced scanners are the same in this manner.

That said, how many people really need to scan every image on the roll at high res..

Another vote for Plustek. All that I know is that when I scan Tmax 100 at 3600 dpi on my Plustek 7300, I can see the individual grains on the negative. I don't know why I would want more detail than that!

Damien,
Nobody really. Which makes the Epson nice becasue I can make the scanner equal of a contact sheet. Then pick the frames I want for further investigation.
Hipster,
I reckon that is probably all anyone needs.

 

[DNG]

Another vote for Plustek. All that I know is that when I scan Tmax 100 at 3600 dpi on my Plustek 7300, I can see the individual grains on the negative. I don't know why I would want more detail than that!

I also have a Plustek 7300, SE Plus
I scan at 4000 to 5000 dpi at 2 scans per negative. It may a bit overkill from 3600dpi, but, the even JPG scans look great., although, the scanner takes the same amount of time to scan time at any dpi setting. The scanner moves at the same rate of speed in other words. Though the file will be smaller with a JPG scan over a TIFF scan,, about 1/2 the size.

EDIT: 7:11pm EST:
The lower scans will scan faster.... Sorry, as I scan a fresh roll at 3600dpi instead of my norm of 5000dpi 😉

Scan a little low on the Contrast so you get the best shadow detail, same with the highlights, scan a little flat. You can always get what you want in your editing software.

 

[Ken Ford]

Lots to learn - thanks, folks!