Gregm61
Well-known
True panorama wide negatives? Not sure. No doubt one could pick up a second negative carrier and adapt it for a wide negative. I guess the next thing would be to check if whatever software you wind up using supports scanning panoranic negatives.
I have both Vuescan and Silverfast on my computer. I'll look this evening and see if either has a pano scanning option.
ramosa
B&W
The Pakon is the one that tempts me. Super fast and super easy scans (aside from the fact that you need to use Windows XP via virtual software). And good for prints up to 11x14.
I hope there's one in my future ...
Swift1
Veteran
I'm pretty sure the Plusteks and most other dedicated 35mm scanners can't do panoramic (wider than 36mm) scans, unless you scan in 2 parts and stitch after.
FWIW, here's a panoramic (24mm x 54mm) scan I did yesterday on my V750.
venchka
Veteran
Numbers. Numbers. Numbers. Bah! Humbug!
I'm looking at 16x20 and 13x19 prints from my Epson 1680 scanner. At a proper viewing distance. They look fine to me.
The photograph counts more than any numbers associated with the hardware used to produce it.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Wayne
Ps: My clients never once asked any questions about the various components used to produce the prints.
Sent from somewhere around here.
I'm looking at 16x20 and 13x19 prints from my Epson 1680 scanner. At a proper viewing distance. They look fine to me.
The photograph counts more than any numbers associated with the hardware used to produce it.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Wayne
Ps: My clients never once asked any questions about the various components used to produce the prints.
Sent from somewhere around here.
Gregm61
Well-known
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
I suppose I will probably look for a bed scanner in the future. Right now, I went the 35mm scanner route mostly for mobility issues. I use a laptop to do most of my work and I usually move around the house a lot (sometimes I work on my bedroom, sometimes on my studio, even on the kitchen 
). 35mm scanner have a high portability factor (the plustek even has a nice carrying bag). I guess once I start doing 120 again, bed scanner will be must.
). 35mm scanner have a high portability factor (the plustek even has a nice carrying bag). I guess once I start doing 120 again, bed scanner will be must.
bhop73
Well-known
Since we're talking print sizes.. i've printed a couple 16x24 (from mpix) from 35mm scans from my V700 and thought they were pretty good.
Disclaimer: I've never used a Nikon scanner or the like, for comparison.
Disclaimer: I've never used a Nikon scanner or the like, for comparison.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Development is easy after you do a couple of rolls (if you follow the rules), but scanning will take much longer.
venchka
Veteran
Like forever. Then one day you get it. The next day you realize there is more to learn. But it does become more rewarding. Patience and Practice.
Wayne
zeddicus
Newbie
Came to post link to fantastically informative Epson scanner review; beaten by four hours.
I second mfogiel's recommendation to read the PDF.
nbagno
Established
Scanning sucks. But using the right scanner helps. I am 100% film and use several scanners. I currently own an ICG 365 Drum Scanner, Pakon 135+, Leafscan 45 and a flat bed for proofing medium format and 4x5.
With the Pakon's ability to scan a full roll it makes 35mm fun again. I don't shoot 36mm for high resolution so the Pakon is perfect.
I can wet scan om the Leaf, so for B&W it's great when I want to drum scan.
If I want to print MF or LF I will drum scan those special images.
I hated dealing with 35mm on a flat bed, also tried a a plustek. Hated it after a while. For multiple rolls of 35mm the Pakon was a god send.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
With the Pakon's ability to scan a full roll it makes 35mm fun again. I don't shoot 36mm for high resolution so the Pakon is perfect.
I can wet scan om the Leaf, so for B&W it's great when I want to drum scan.
If I want to print MF or LF I will drum scan those special images.
I hated dealing with 35mm on a flat bed, also tried a a plustek. Hated it after a while. For multiple rolls of 35mm the Pakon was a god send.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
Out of curiosity I checked the various Plustek models' capacity for panoramic 135 film. It seems the OpticFilm 135 can do it with an adapter. I have no idea how it performs or how much it costs. From a quick look it seems the 8xxx models and the 7400 only scan 24x36.
guardado1213
Established
I Appreciate the link to the article , very informative. Based off of that and recommendations, i think it will be between the epson v700 and plustek 8200i. So far im leaning toward the Epson v700, but only because i really like the fact that it can scan panoramas. I don't plan on making large prints for clients using home scans ( i would use a professional lab for that). But i would like to get into a habit of printing some of my best work, just for the fun of it.
teddy
Jose Morales
Hi mfogiel, would you please put this into a simpler answer for me (I have little kids and feel brain dead - you know baby brain)...
The biggest print I would do is A4 or 210x297mm, so would an Epson v700 give me a first rate scan for print at this size? 98% of the time I print for 6x4 and rarely at 8x10.
Thanks for your effort, and also I enjoy your photography in your Flickr stream. I enjoy the clarity of your images.
Jose
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
plustek + vuescan
it’s certainly worthwhile to read the article on the Epson V850 that you’ve linked, but finding a scanning solution is not as simple as you imply. One example: the V850 article gives some maximum print sizes but qualifies those as being “without downsampling”: indeed, Epson printers can make good, large prints with an input of substantially less than 360dpi — depending on the aesthetic that one is after, such as fine landscapes vs high-contrast street photography (say, Ansel Adams vs Moriyama Daido) an input of 180dpi, or even 120dpi, for huge prints (40x60 inches, or 100x150cm) can be fine.
Having looked at scanning solutions for a couple of weeks, it’s seems to me for many people it’s not as simple as deciding on the size of print that you want. Ideally, one would want to be able to make a quick scan of a roll of 35mm film and then make high-resolution scans of the “keepers.” But here’s where the problems start: what are “keepers?” For me there are two level of keepers: in the first instance, taking the three rolls of Tri-X that I shot a few weeks ago, there were 21 frames that I was interested in exploring further by working on them in Lightroom and Silver Efex (including burning and dodging), the equivalent of making “work prints” in the dark room. Then, there is the second stage of keepers that may be determined as long as 3 to 6 month later — and these keepers may average 2 per roll (“fine prints” in the darkroom). Added to this is the complication that I don’t know the print size that I may eventually want for any particular print: it may be, say, 12x18 inches, 24x36 inches or 40x60 inches.
In the dark room one can always pick up ant frame form any roll and make a work print or a fine print that one wants — and use a custom printer for the largest size. In scanning, the solution would be make a high resolution scan for all the first level of keepers and then use that for writing whatever size one wants. But this approach works only with an Imacon or Hasselblad scanner, in terms of resolution and dMax that one would want.
Now, I have an Imacon Precision III that I hadn’t used for ten years and gave it to a friend in December, when I was “sure” that I would never do film again, but he couldn't get it going — it has a SCSI interface — and returned it to me recently. In three 10-hour days, I managed to get the old OS X 10.6.8 installed on an old Mac PowerBook to run the (legacy) Imacon ColorFlex 4.04 software and got the SCSI-to-FireWire Orange Converter and Granite (power) SCSI Terminator going so that all this works — only to learn, on the third full day of my effort, that this scanner, which does true optical resolution of 6300dpi with a dMAx of 4.2, loses sharpness at the trailing end of the 35mm frame (as the negative is fed into the scanner in portrait orientation). Further research showed hat Imacon scanners require periodic maintenance fairly often. After some hours of searching the web, I found out that the cause of the sharpness loss is slippage of the drive belts the feed the holder mechanism. I have to replace these belts. Although, apparently, I can buy the belts in the US or the UK at about US$5 each, I'm likely to give up because these scanners usually require belt replacement every six months or so. The belt problem also makes the film frame shift in the holder as it goes into the scanner, so that a small portion of the scan is often cut off. I now remember from ten years ago that I often had this problem, but didn't know there was a solution. By the way, there is no batch feed solution for this scanner — and one full res (6300dpi) 35mm scan takes 15 minutes.
As I don't want to make a career out of the care and feeding of this Imacon scanner, I'm likely to just dump it. I couldn't sell it with a good conscience. Basically, even if I was prepared spent $14,000 on a new Hasselblad X1 — same 6300dpi resolution as my Imacon but twice the speed — I don’t think it would make sense because I don’t believe the the drive mechanism on the new scanner has changed. That means these Hasselblad scanners only make sense (beyond the price issue) in a photo lab environment, if they can be serviced and maintained regularly.
Other possibilities? According to the V850 article there are good Minolta and Nikon scanners, but these can be bought only used; they are old; they could break down; service might be difficult or impossible to arrange, depending on the country you are in. That leaves the Plustek and the Epson scanners.
I thought of getting a Plustek 35mm scanner, but am concerned that the dMax is only 3.6 — that’s 2 stops less than the my Imacon, whose dMax is 4.2 (0.3 = 1 stop)— you can get to 4.0 dMax using the SilverFast software with multi-pass scanning, but that takes 30 minutes per frame. The Plustek 8200 ai (US$500) has only manual feed. The Plustek 120 (US$1,900) has batch feed but the same resolution and dMax as the Plustek 8200 ai — but the batch feed, according to some reports, does not operate reliably, sometimes freezing the software.
The other alternative is an Epson V850 — slightly less resolution but more dMax (4.0) than the Plusteks and faster. Perhaps this could be the most practical (on the basis off all I’ve read on the subject), but not a great solution for large prints.
All these issues would fall away if I would make darkroom prints, but I simply can’t. A good custom lab is another solution. BTW, here in Paris, where I am right now, there is custom lab that will develop film by inspection and make a contact sheet or scan for €20-25 per roll; they can also make huge darkroom prints with barbing and dodging, as requested.
It seems to me that the lack of a good scanning solution is the single things that holds back most people that are interested in shooting film. The problem is that the film scanner market is just to small for serious scanner development by manufacturers.
I’m considering a full return to film — for the time being I’ll use a lab for developing and scanning. Not sure what I’ll do eventually. Am I missing something?
mfogiel
Veteran
@teddy
An A4 print is roughly 8x11 inch. If you only shoot 35mm film, you will need to crop a bit the long side, or make the long side fit, at which point the short side will be about 7.5 inch.
Let's assume you will use the short side entirely. The 35mm film height is 23.6mm - almost an inch. You need to enlarge it 8 times in order to fill completely the A4 sheet. This means that you should desire to scan with a true optical resolution of 8x360=2880 ppi. In practice, it would be desirable to have slightly more resolution in case you wish to crop. Obviously, you can scan at a slightly lower resolution and upsample the image, or print at e.g. 300dpi, which will mean that you only need 2400 ppi resolution, very close to abt 2200 ppi of Epson V700-800 scanners.
There is another thing. These threads are full of posts that sound like this:
"I scan with a XXX scanner and print 16x20 inch, and the print looks good, although admittedly I've never tried better scanners." This means two things:
- that if you don't know that your prints could look better you can be happy all the same
- that even if you know it could be better, for the type of photography you do this could be good enough.
My problem with Epson ( I have the V750), apart from the film flatness issues ( yes, I have Doug's holders) is that it simply cannot resolve the grain. This could be a good or a bad thing, depending on your preferences. I prefer to use a sharper scanner ( Nikon CS 9000) and NOT edge sharpen later ( this avoids artefacts) rather than a less sharp scanner and sharpen to death later.
@Nowhereman
I think, that for proofing 35mm a Pakon and for proofing MF an Epson V700-800 are sufficient and should be fairly little intensive to operate. For actual scanning of 35mm I think we are getting close to the point where a high resolution digital camera ( without AA filter) with a macro or better, repro lens, mounted on some support guaranteeing sufficient precision tollerances will simply trump in effectiveness even Imacons and drum scans. The MF remains still a problem, and the best cheap solution is the Nikon CS 9000 with a glass holder, or else a drum.
An A4 print is roughly 8x11 inch. If you only shoot 35mm film, you will need to crop a bit the long side, or make the long side fit, at which point the short side will be about 7.5 inch.
Let's assume you will use the short side entirely. The 35mm film height is 23.6mm - almost an inch. You need to enlarge it 8 times in order to fill completely the A4 sheet. This means that you should desire to scan with a true optical resolution of 8x360=2880 ppi. In practice, it would be desirable to have slightly more resolution in case you wish to crop. Obviously, you can scan at a slightly lower resolution and upsample the image, or print at e.g. 300dpi, which will mean that you only need 2400 ppi resolution, very close to abt 2200 ppi of Epson V700-800 scanners.
There is another thing. These threads are full of posts that sound like this:
"I scan with a XXX scanner and print 16x20 inch, and the print looks good, although admittedly I've never tried better scanners." This means two things:
- that if you don't know that your prints could look better you can be happy all the same
- that even if you know it could be better, for the type of photography you do this could be good enough.
My problem with Epson ( I have the V750), apart from the film flatness issues ( yes, I have Doug's holders) is that it simply cannot resolve the grain. This could be a good or a bad thing, depending on your preferences. I prefer to use a sharper scanner ( Nikon CS 9000) and NOT edge sharpen later ( this avoids artefacts) rather than a less sharp scanner and sharpen to death later.
@Nowhereman
I think, that for proofing 35mm a Pakon and for proofing MF an Epson V700-800 are sufficient and should be fairly little intensive to operate. For actual scanning of 35mm I think we are getting close to the point where a high resolution digital camera ( without AA filter) with a macro or better, repro lens, mounted on some support guaranteeing sufficient precision tollerances will simply trump in effectiveness even Imacons and drum scans. The MF remains still a problem, and the best cheap solution is the Nikon CS 9000 with a glass holder, or else a drum.
Thanks, proofing with an Epson of Pakon and copying with a digital camera could be a good solution. I've started looking at a Leitz BEOON copy stand, but haven't yet figured whether and how I could use it with my M9 or MM. The Pakon would have to be run under a Windows emulator with a Mac, so the Epson solution could be simpler. Any suggestions that you or anyone else on how to do the BEOON setup would be helpful.
What are "Doug's holders" for the Epson?
teddy
Jose Morales
Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it. I think for recording my family in every day life a v700 would be fine but occasionaly I get a swell image and take it to a pro lab like Atkins in Adelaide. Mostly I print 6x4, 5x7, 8x10. Eventually I would love to acquire a Nikon scanner for better images and to appreciate my lenses more. Thanks for the food for thought.
mfogiel
Veteran
@Nowhereman
For the scanning set up, take a look here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154469
Doug's holders are these: http://www.betterscanning.com
I've read that Epson V8xx has better holders than the original ones, but can't comment. My issue with MF scanning was, that a single piece of glass in these "better" Doug's holders still does not hold the film flat, and there were already far too many glass elements in the field of view of the scanner, so in my opinion, you need to tension the film flat somehow without additional glass surfaces, and it has to be at the precise height where the scanner is focused.
BTW, this issue also appears with CS 9000, so unless you tension and stick MF film with a tape to the normal holder, there are issues with across the board sharpness. The solution is to use the glass holder, which works fine, albeit there seems to be a tiny loss of resolution compared to glassless scans.
For the scanning set up, take a look here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154469
Doug's holders are these: http://www.betterscanning.com
I've read that Epson V8xx has better holders than the original ones, but can't comment. My issue with MF scanning was, that a single piece of glass in these "better" Doug's holders still does not hold the film flat, and there were already far too many glass elements in the field of view of the scanner, so in my opinion, you need to tension the film flat somehow without additional glass surfaces, and it has to be at the precise height where the scanner is focused.
BTW, this issue also appears with CS 9000, so unless you tension and stick MF film with a tape to the normal holder, there are issues with across the board sharpness. The solution is to use the glass holder, which works fine, albeit there seems to be a tiny loss of resolution compared to glassless scans.