I wrote a review of the Pacific Image XA for 35mmC

[SaveKodak]

The images in the review seem so flat and almost hazy. Even the ones taken in bright sunlight. I know it's not the gear you are using - the Zeiss and Nikon lenses or the Fuji Superia film because I use that too. So the only thing it could be is the scanner.
I use, pay someone else to use actually!, the Noritsu and Frontier scanners and the results are knock out. It's worth every penny to me as I sell those images. One sale pays for an awful lot of pro dev and scanning!

It's not really a matter of patience for me, but time. I don't have time to photograph, try to get a worthwhile scan, then process and print. And everything I've seen suggests that the weak link - in time and results - are these consumer scanners.
As you have said, it requires a lot of time and expertise to make it sing. In this day and age frankly that is not acceptable. There is no reason whatsoever that a killer state of the art scanner cannot be made that is plug and play. The only reason we don't see it is because 'we' accept the limitations in frankly ancient hardware and software.
With film use and interest taking off again, perhaps someone like Nikon will step up to the plate and make a current version of the Coolscan. Or even a modern Pakon. If it was that capable back then, with film profiles built in that worked and that speed, imagine if that had modern computing power and bumped up resolution.

This is funny to me because I used the original chrome on a light table when I was color correcting the scan to match. These scans are very representative of the original and in some cases an improvement of a slightly off exposure due to multi-exposure. I have scanned film that was previously scanned by a Frontier and I can do a better job every time.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

No, it was cockeyed and, when I could straighten it out by wrenching it around in the feed, it would chop off the bottom or the top.

You know that lab scanners cut off those parts of the frame anyways, right?

 

[SaveKodak]

You know that lab scanners cut off those parts of the frame anyways, right?

He's just proving my point about the people who write bad reviews of this scanner, they don't know what they're doing. That explanation is completely baffling...it does not even deserve a response.

 

[SaveKodak]

Well, what the ****. Thanks for the review. Not sure why everybody has such a sandy vagina.

Thanks! I had a great time writing it and shooting for it! It got me to buy an F6 so I think I love this thing.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

The images in the review seem so flat and almost hazy. Even the ones taken in bright sunlight. I know it's not the gear you are using - the Zeiss and Nikon lenses or the Fuji Superia film because I use that too. So the only thing it could be is the scanner.
I use, pay someone else to use actually!, the Noritsu and Frontier scanners and the results are knock out. It's worth every penny to me as I sell those images. One sale pays for an awful lot of pro dev and scanning!

It's not really a matter of patience for me, but time. I don't have time to photograph, try to get a worthwhile scan, then process and print. And everything I've seen suggests that the weak link - in time and results - are these consumer scanners.
As you have said, it requires a lot of time and expertise to make it sing. In this day and age frankly that is not acceptable. There is no reason whatsoever that a killer state of the art scanner cannot be made that is plug and play. The only reason we don't see it is because 'we' accept the limitations in frankly ancient hardware and software.
With film use and interest taking off again, perhaps someone like Nikon will step up to the plate and make a current version of the Coolscan. Or even a modern Pakon. If it was that capable back then, with film profiles built in that worked and that speed, imagine if that had modern computing power and bumped up resolution.

Had it occurred to you that sometimes people scan images based on their own personal preferences? He scans his stuff "flat and hazy" and I use the same scanner and mine are pretty much the opposite. Speaking from a workflow standpoint yeah, it makes more sense to send stuff off if you're constantly working or shoot more than 10-15 rolls per job and don't have time but I would still consider the output of these scanners "high quality" or "professional." The speed is something that is lacking but not the quality. I do agree that it would be great if someone came out with a new scanner that would compete with the Noritsu on price but much smaller.

 

[Paul T.]

thanks for the review - very detailed, and I thought the rendition of the chromes looked great.

You asked for feedback, so:
1: There's an instruction for writers known as 'kill your babies.' As in, kill that detailed, long introduction to the background of a review. Which you can strike out, and get straight to the meat, without anything being lost. That applies here.
2: "It's" means "it is." Otherwise, use "its".

Once again, thanks for the review, especially the details on manual focusing etc, serious food for thought.

 

[hamish_gill]

thanks for the review - very detailed, and I thought the rendition of the chromes looked great.

You asked for feedback, so:
1: There's an instruction for writers known as 'kill your babies.' As in, kill that detailed, long introduction to the background of a review. Which you can strike out, and get straight to the meat, without anything being lost. That applies here.
2: "It's" means "it is." Otherwise, use "its".

Once again, thanks for the review, especially the details on manual focusing etc, serious food for thought.

My whole website is filled with verbose posts with loads of background and waffle. It's the way I write, so I always encourage contributors to do the same.
The extra meat on the bones isn't for everyone, but ta what my readers often comment upon as being the reason they keep coming back

 

[hamish_gill]

Well, what the ****. Thanks for the review. Not sure why everybody has such a sandy vagina.

I'm one of those idiots who reads there phone walking down the road ... I just got a funny look from laughing out loud at this in the street

 

[Paul T.]

My whole website is filled with verbose posts with loads of background and waffle. It's the way I write, so I always encourage contributors to do the same.
The extra meat on the bones isn't for everyone, but ta what my readers often comment upon as being the reason they keep coming back

Sure. Your site, your rules. But the folks who start reading and leave after the first 300 words of throat-clearing are unlikely to comment on the reasons for doing do. And that's a shame if they miss out on the good stuff.

 

[Solinar]

I'll be the first to admit that waiting for a multi-pass scan to finish can be like watching paint dry. On my laptop, we're talking about 9 or 10 minutes tops.

Provided that someone doesn't shoot a roll of film every day, only scans selected frames from each roll of film and is comfortable using Vuescan - this current crop of affordable 35mm film scanners are a bargain for the advanced amateur. The Plustek 8200i SE for example is just $300 at B&H photo.

Granted there are better 35mm scanners -but not at this price range. For web work or up to an 8 by 12 print - you'll be good to go with one these bargain basement 35mm scanners.

One other tid bit, if you still have a flat bed scanner. You can use the flat bed at low resolution to provide you contact sheet image.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

One other tid bit, if you still have a flat bed scanner. You can use the flat bed at low resolution to provide you contact sheet image.

This is the only reason I want a flat bed. Well and to do more medium format.

 

[mich rassena]

I'd never heard of the scanner before, and your review makes it look desirable. Of course, it's still too expensive for my budget or needs, but would be something I'd recommend to others. I'm just happy to see any newly released film scanner of any kind. Even better that it's actually pretty good.

I would however like to see some full-resolution scans. 100% crops and down-sampled images for the web only tell you so much.

 

[Prest_400]

Good review. I like the way the Chrome scans resulted, quite authentic. Chrome is easy and hard to scan: Have a color reference but the scanner can struggle with density.

I use, pay someone else to use actually!, the Noritsu and Frontier scanners and the results are knock out. It's worth every penny to me as I sell those images. One sale pays for an awful lot of pro dev and scanning!

I currently segregate my 35mm and 120. The former goes to a lab who does Frontier scans nicely (and with a longer lead time/turnaround), the latter to a Pro lab for Dev Only; Also in 120 I tend to mix some E6.
I have quite a methodical and certain way of shooting 35mm so I like whole rolls scanned (although I'm becoming looser with time)

I should take a look at selling images. It would indeed cover up a lot of the costs.

It'd be a dream to have a quick HiRes TIFF service! A part I dislike of lab scans is when they come a bit too contrasty or bright and (maybe I'm a bit of a purist) I don't like having to touch JPEGs. It's also why when I scan myself (120) I tend to have flatter and less contrasty scans.

This is the only reason I want a flat bed. Well and to do more medium format.

Having to go all the way to a v800 or the like. There was an extensive review (LL) that gave it quite an accolade. My v550 isn't that excellent though, and only single strips of medium format.

 

[hamish_gill]

Sure. Your site, your rules. But the folks who start reading and leave after the first 300 words of throat-clearing are unlikely to comment on the reasons for doing do. And that's a shame if they miss out on the good stuff.

You'd hate my Zeiss ZM Sonnar Review 😉

 

[stompyq]

So you had two defective scanners and want to bash the entire company? Salty salty....

Yeah, that's actually one of the two reasons I went down the path of scanning at home.



https://media.giphy.com/media/TlK63ERYSGQsdqG04uc/giphy.gif

As I stated previously, I actually called and confirmed with Pacific Imaging that this was abnormal behavior for the scanner. They gave me over-the-phone instruction on usage, and confirmed that it should be able to scan all the way out to the film rebate. Both scanners were slightly different, but they both lost 7-10% of the image in one way or another. They were both from the same lot no so the PI service tech had me ask B&H to send them to the service center - I never followed up because I didn't care.

 

[stompyq]

Salty salty...:bang::bang:

I guess that "bashing" of the "entire company" must have happened somewhere between me saying 'good results when you can get it' and a description of very good customer service? Shame I missed that when I was typing it out.

 

[jarski]

nice review. thx 🙂

So really, don’t scan full rolls. Scan only your best work, show only your best work.

this gave me something to think about. fully agree the showing part, but moving the selection of keepers bit "up stream" from Lightroom to Vuescan.

 

[ForestCap]

I searched on flickr to see more sample images from this scanner. I saw some really beautiful shots on Velvia, but the images from C-41 films are not impressive at all. Colour depth and Dmax wise, the results look like something my old PlusTek can give. That said I also don't know how much editing were within all those images.

 

[SaveKodak]

Yeah, that's actually one of the two reasons I went down the path of scanning at home.



https://media.giphy.com/media/TlK63ERYSGQsdqG04uc/giphy.gif

As I stated previously, I actually called and confirmed with Pacific Imaging that this was abnormal behavior for the scanner. They gave me over-the-phone instruction on usage, and confirmed that it should be able to scan all the way out to the film rebate. Both scanners were slightly different, but they both lost 7-10% of the image in one way or another. They were both from the same lot no so the PI service tech had me ask B&H to send them to the service center - I never followed up because I didn't care.

Idk who told you that at PI but mine crops off the top and bottom, and Brennan's does as well. In fact everything I've read about the scanner indicated that you can't scan full frame. Most scanners can't do this out of the box, same with most film carriers for enlargers, which is why you 'file them out.' I will say my PIXA scans far more than Frontiers & Nortisu's do.

And honestly if the part of the frame that most VF's crop out, most scanners crop out, and most enlargers crop out, is so critical to your work...idk what to tell you. I personally save the full frame prints for the darkroom, that's how you know it's a real print. For the rest I focus on image making, not superficial details that are mostly distractions.

So again, you are being a cranky, low information user. Since you can't bother learning to use it, you should probably just move on from scanning, or possibly photography in general.

 

[SaveKodak]

I searched on flickr to see more sample images from this scanner. I saw some really beautiful shots on Velvia, but the images from C-41 films are not impressive at all. Colour depth and Dmax wise, the results look like something my old PlusTek can give. That said I also don't know how much editing were within all those images.

Color neg can be challenging for many users. I now do all my post-scan color work in PS. Often times I mask out the high range and low range indepentantly and use a layer adjustment curve on both. This is mostly software related though. Vuescan and Silverfast could both do a much better job of having built in profiles and curves. Both programs have a select # of profiled films, but every time I've tried to use them they're pretty far off from what I expect. There is simply not enough R&D going into this space. That's why the lab-scanners like Noritsu and Frontiers do so well with color neg, the companies invested a lot of time into getting them done quick.

But my larger point was that it takes work, and that's ok. I remember color correcting RA-4 prints in the darkroom and it took a looooooot longer than it did when working on my scans. And if you were going big, say hello to selectively burning with colored gels to deal with the color balance shift. Yeah, it's challenging to get right, but that's just the nature of the game. Not everything in photography is going to be simple and automated. People have been a little spoiled and they need to adjust their mindset. The more you put into your scan, the more you get out of it.