Plustek OpticFilm Scanner

[theopenlife]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has used the Plustek OpticFilm 7500iSE Scanner, or similar, for slides and negs. Particularly slides. If not, what scanners do you use, and what's your experience compared to "professional" scans like those from ScanCafe.com?

This is the PlusTek, if you haven't seen it:

http://www.adorama.com/ICDP7500ISE.html

Thanks!!

 

[Gradskater]

I have a 7300 and I am very happy with the scans and the prints I get from them. It does take a while, though, with dust retouching and a little noise ninja work, to do a single frame. Maybe 10-15 minutes per picture start to finish. You can see some random pictures on my flickr page, which don't look nearly as good as the files on my computer. Here is the link if you want to take a look:

http://flickr.com/search/?w=22012708@N00&q=plustek&m=text

 

[theopenlife]

Thanks so much!

 

[Florian1234]

I'm also considering to buy the 7500i SE soon.

Which real resolution does it have? How big can the prints be from its' scans?

 

[Gradskater]

The 7300 I have is usually set to scan at 3000dpi. I scan as tif and then convert to jpeg. The colors look better this way for some reason. This makes 6-8mb jpegs that look great printed 8x10. I haven't tried to print anything bigger than that. this one here was processed that way. Taken with a jupiter 8.

 

[jfretless]

I saw your epiphany thread...

I saw your epiphany thread...

on dpreview... I haven't been following the thread, but is 35mm the only thing you will be scanning?

remember your reaction when you discovered your father's 35mm slides... wait until you discover medium format... Just awesome.

i've used a Canon fs4000 dedicated film scanner for years, but recently bought a Canon 8800f flatbed that does MF and 35mm. Been very happy with it.

John

 

[M like Leica M6]

Forget this kiind of scanners for real BW films. All highlight details are wiped out because the density and contrast range is too high for these scanners. Surplus, the grain is usually very emphasized, it's like using a condensor enlarger.

 

[Florian1234]

Forget this kiind of scanners for real BW films. All highlight details are wiped out because the density and contrast range is too high for these scanners. Surplus, the grain is usually very emphasized, it's like using a condensor enlarger.

So you say go buy a Nikon? 😀

 

[varjag]

Nikon scanner light source is known for bringing out grain too. In fact, having used both Coolscan V and Plustek 7200, I'd say the coolscan shows grain rougher.

In real resolution they are close enough, but otherwise Nikon is a better scanner of course.

 

[M like Leica M6]

So you say go buy a Nikon? 😀

Actually.... NO. Even Nikon says they are not good for BW, for the same reason. On a budget, I do not know one good scanner. Maybe it is worth looking for a used "Minolta Dimage Ellite 5400 II". It is notoriously unreliable but the scans are very good, it has a different light source, it seems. The only real good scanner for BW negatives is out of range for most users: Imacon alias Hasselblad scanners.

If there is anyone who knows a cheaper machine that does exhibition-quality scans from traditional BW negatives let me know...

 

[rich815]

Actually.... NO. Even Nikon says they are not good for BW, for the same reason...

Darn! And here I was happy up to now with my LS-4000 and LS-9000.

I thought I was getting good B&W scans......

 

[M like Leica M6]

Darn! And here I was happy up to now with my LS-4000 and LS-9000.

I thought I was getting good B&W scans......

Did you try to scan a Tmax 100? Or a Tri-X pushed to 1600 ASA? Pretty dense highlights. Do you print bigger than 16x22" from 35mm scans? There is the rub.

 

[pphuang]

Forget this kiind of scanners for real BW films. All highlight details are wiped out because the density and contrast range is too high for these scanners. Surplus, the grain is usually very emphasized, it's like using a condensor enlarger.

Actually, according to this review, the higher resolution supposedly de-emphasizes the grain pattern, although the dynamic range is lower - link

 

[c.poulton]

Blimey, I was considering getting this scanner as well. SO what does one do to scan B+W negs, on a budget? I am considering getting my pro-lab to scan for me however they ain't cheap!

Is the solution just not to scan negs and get a good flatbed and scan prints instead?

Confused😕

 

[migtex]

I have the old Plustek 7200 + Epson 3200 photo.
In b&W the Ptek looks much better.
Use Silverfast on TWAIN interface


Great pics GDI!

 

[stephaneb]

Yes the Nikon 9000 is totally worthless on B&W, I don't know what to do....

They are indeed quite poor, notably the blown highlight make them look like they were taken with a cheap digital P&S.

However, the Nikon 9000 can of course be made to do much much better. One of the best scanners.

The V and 5000 are different beasts. The 9000 has a diffuse light source while the other two have a very collimated source.