Plustek 7500i vs. Coolscan V for b&w?

[mh2000]

How does the Plustek do for b&w? I'm pretty much giving up on my Coolscan at this point. Will the Plustek get me 4000dpi for real? How does the Plustek do with grain aliasing and scanning artifacts?

Thanks!

I'd really like some samples if anyone is using this or a similar scanner.

 

[dfoo]

Whats wrong with your coolscan?

 

[morback]

100% crop of an agfa apx400 negative (35mm) by the plustek 7500ai.

5000 dpi:

I heard somewhere the real resolution of this think is more like 3600.
It's cheap and does the job. If you are planing on doing exhibit prints, I'd have the negative drum scanned anyways (and submit a finished print from your Plustek to match).

 

[cjm]

I use a Plustek 7300 for B&W and I'm very happy with it. You can find samples of my scanned photos HERE. Only the B&W photos were scanned with the 7300. Hope this helps.

 

[cjm]

Also, here's a 100% crop I did for a lens test. I believe I scanned it at 2400dpi.

 

[russianRF]

I take it this is glass-less scanning; that is, nothing but air between the negative and the scanning lens? I love my Epson V500 Perfection, but I realize it's badly hampered by the fact that the negatives have to sit over the glass. 🙁

 

[morback]

It's glass-less and the holders are flimsy. No option to scan with borders either. Maybe a third party will come up with decent film holder.
I find my scanner picks up every little bit of dust & scratches on the negs as I don't use any automatic cleanup, so I sit and clean for hours afterwards...

 

[mh2000]

It has problems with real b&w negatives... bad grain aliasing etc. For my 16mm b&w negatives I've added a diffuser which helps, but it still is rather harsh. Also, the DOF is so shallow that it is hard to provide adequate flatness. The stupid SA-21 strip film adapter is useless unless the film is already perfectly flat and stiff.

For C41 it does great... I was wondering if something else would be more forgiving with grainy b&w.

Thanks! (The examples look promising!)

Whats wrong with your coolscan?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It has problems with real b&w negatives... bad grain aliasing etc. For my 16mm b&w negatives I've added a diffuser which helps, but it still is rather harsh. Also, the DOF is so shallow that it is hard to provide adequate flatness. The stupid SA-21 strip film adapter is useless unless the film is already perfectly flat and stiff.

For C41 it does great... I was wondering if something else would be more forgiving with grainy b&w.

Thanks! (The examples look promising!)

I have the 8000 coolscan. It does fine for Black and white, and your 5000 likely does too. The grain problem everyone complains about is simply because you're looking at scans of 35mm negs at a size on screen equal to about a 20x30 print...WAY bigger than you'll ever want to print 35mm negs. Of course they look grainy! I've made many, many 11x14 prints from 35mm scans on my 8000 and they look just like my darkroom prints did as far as grain and sharpness. 11x14 is pretty big for 35mm, about as big as you'll normally go unless you used some super grainless film like Tech Pan, or you want the grain for effect.

I will agree, Nikon's neg carriers suck. I use a glass carrier that Nikon makes and it makes a world of difference in sharpness. Unfortunately there isn't on for the 5000.

 

[arthur sadowsky]

...please, please, please!

Whoever is using Plustek 7500: could you please upload any C41 COLOR!! unmanipulated direct scans? The bigger size is the better it's!

What do you think of film holder, how practical is the scanner from your prespective??

Thank you in advance!

p.s.: ...I don't think I have enough $$ to buy Nikon and I have to look for more affordable Plustek.

 

[maddoc]

Also, the DOF is so shallow that it is hard to provide adequate flatness. The stupid SA-21 strip film adapter is useless unless the film is already perfectly flat and stiff.
(The examples look promising!)

That's why I have sold mine after getting the Epson V700. The SA-21 strip film holder was next to useless with slightly bent film and using the optional holder FH-3 means no more batch scan (only single frame scan and manually changing the FH-3 strip holder to scan the next frame)

 

[Svitantti]

Coolscan surely kicks any Plusteks ass easily

 

[freeranger]

Here is a review of the 7200
I bought it and have been happy with the results I have been getting (using vuescan instead of the bundled silverfast)

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Plustek-OpticFilm-7200i-4248

It all comes down to value for money. For the price, you can't go wrong with plustek.

 

[dfoo]

I agree with Chris about the grain aliasing. An equal sized print from my condenser enlarger looks very similar to a print from a scan. Fast black and white film is grainy, thats life. From a workflow perspective, surely the plustek is terrible when compared with the coolscan. It would be like using the strip holder for each frame. I don't get the complaints about bent & curly film. Why not flatten it?

 

[mh2000]

welll... I'm talking about the Coolscan V which has a different light source and I'm talking about printed output, not 100% crops. I have been scanning 16mm (12x17mm) negatives lately and leading to 6x9" prints which end up having an enlargement factor that is greater than 11x14" from 35mm, so yes, I am pushing it a bit... but still, I think it should look more like grain and less like aliased digital noise. I got some new diffusing material to try today... seems to help with the cold/harsh light... maybe this will be the magic trick that saves me. 🙂

I have the 8000 coolscan. It does fine for Black and white, and your 5000 likely does too. The grain problem everyone complains about is simply because you're looking at scans of 35mm negs at a size on screen equal to about a 20x30 print...WAY bigger than you'll ever want to print 35mm negs. Of course they look grainy! I've made many, many 11x14 prints from 35mm scans on my 8000 and they look just like my darkroom prints did as far as grain and sharpness. 11x14 is pretty big for 35mm, about as big as you'll normally go unless you used some super grainless film like Tech Pan, or you want the grain for effect.

I will agree, Nikon's neg carriers suck. I use a glass carrier that Nikon makes and it makes a world of difference in sharpness. Unfortunately there isn't on for the 5000.

 

[arthur sadowsky]

...please, please, please!

Whoever is using Plustek 7500: could you please upload any C41 COLOR!! un-manipulated direct scans? The bigger size is the better it's!

What do you think of film holder, how practical is the scanner from your perspective??

Thank you in advance!

p.s.: ...I don't think I have enough $$ to buy Nikon and I have to look for more affordable Plustek.

 

[dfoo]

There have been very affordable coolscans for sale here in the classifieds! An unmanipulated C-41 scan makes no sense, btw. They are all manipulated in one way or another due to the mask.