Scanner Dilemma

C

charmicarmicat

Member
Local time
6:06 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
21
Hello all.

First of all the details.

- I shoot 35mm black and white film.
- I develop myself.
- I currently scan at 6400 ppi on an flatbed Epson Perfection V600 but after doing some research it’s just not accurate and it's more like 1500 ppi.
- I use the most current versions of Mac OS and PS and do all the cleaning etc with PS. I never use the ICE software supplied with the scanner.
- I am an amateur but I won’t settle for something that’s just “okay” anymore, thus the V600. I mean it does/did a good enough job but after trying a Nikon Coolscan at a friends house, “okay” won’t cut it.
- I am now considering rescanning a lot of film as I can tell that some photos will greatly benefit from a new scan.
- I do plan on doing some large-ish prints, 20X30cm/A4.
- I live in the Netherlands :)

Now the problem. I saved some money (€1000.00) and was ready to buy a new scanner but my bubble is now burst as I checked the prices on Coolscan and it’s out of my range.

So my question is what’s next? I’ll save some more until I have enough to get either a new one or a used one. but in the meantime, what do I do? Bring my developed film to a lab for a proper scan? Seriously, that strip of negative that I scanned on the Coolscan was day and night from the V600. Okay, I exaggerate a bit but those who have used both know what I mean: The difference is remarkable to say the least.

I am not necessarily asking for advice on which scanner to get, I think I got that one figured out, it’s more what to do in the meantime.

Of course if folks have suggestions about a different scanner, I am open to that, but the main point of this post is what to do in the meantime.

Thank you all for chiming in.

Guy.
 
I bought a Coolscan LS-8000 in germany for exactly 1000€ in January. You can get a Coolscan V for less or an LS-4000 in that price range too. Only the 5000 and 9000 are much more.

if you just shoot 35, I'd also consider a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II (very fast)
 
charmicarmicat said:
...
- I shoot 35mm black and white film.
- I develop myself.
- I currently scan .... on an flatbed Epson Perfection V600.
- I do plan on doing some large-ish prints, 20X30cm/A4.
...
Click to expand...

B/W at this scanner is good for mid size prints like those.

With V500 I could print even slightly bigger and even color scans.
I use Epson software and LR. Getting good enough results for prints, computer screens and web.

Not all of the monitors are capable in showing of all of details I have in scans. My laptop is same crap as iPad.
I could only see all of greys and other details on computer with special graphics card.

Plus, I do analog print, which is real thing in terms of getting best from the negative.

Paying couple of thousands dollars just to see something nobody else but me is going to see, is very expensive and useless exercise, IMO, if you are doing it just for hobby.

I live in Canada :), but it is same in where you are in terms of darkroom kits availability. Get one for free and enjoy real b/w photography results.
 
charmicarmicat said:
Hello all.

First of all the details.

- I shoot 35mm black and white film.
- I develop myself.
- I currently scan at 6400 ppi on an flatbed Epson Perfection V600 but after doing some research it’s just not accurate and it's more like 1500 ppi.
- I use the most current versions of Mac OS and PS and do all the cleaning etc with PS. I never use the ICE software supplied with the scanner.
- I am an amateur but I won’t settle for something that’s just “okay” anymore, thus the V600. I mean it does/did a good enough job but after trying a Nikon Coolscan at a friends house, “okay” won’t cut it.
- I am now considering rescanning a lot of film as I can tell that some photos will greatly benefit from a new scan.
- I do plan on doing some large-ish prints, 20X30cm/A4.
- I live in the Netherlands :)

Now the problem. I saved some money (€1000.00) and was ready to buy a new scanner but my bubble is now burst as I checked the prices on Coolscan and it’s out of my range.

So my question is what’s next? I’ll save some more until I have enough to get either a new one or a used one. but in the meantime, what do I do? Bring my developed film to a lab for a proper scan? Seriously, that strip of negative that I scanned on the Coolscan was day and night from the V600. Okay, I exaggerate a bit but those who have used both know what I mean: The difference is remarkable to say the least.

I am not necessarily asking for advice on which scanner to get, I think I got that one figured out, it’s more what to do in the meantime.

Of course if folks have suggestions about a different scanner, I am open to that, but the main point of this post is what to do in the meantime.

Thank you all for chiming in.

Guy.
Click to expand...

About the only way you can improve the scans on b/w is with either a marginal increase in resolution to the Epson V750 or with a dedicated 35mm scanner like the Plustek. The latetr is pretty close to a Nikon.

Silver halide b/w cannot use ICE in any case.

Another option is to shoot C41 Ilford XP2 and have it lab developed and scanned. Or use Ilford's scanning services. Or do XP2 and develop yourself, and scan yourself using the benefit of ICE, working best on a new Plustek.

Good luck.
 
If you already have a v600, you may have a simple and affordable option in front of you: Keep doing your preview/contact sheets using v600. Buy a plustek to scan those frames you really want in detail. I had a hi-end coolscan until a couple of months ago, and I sold it to an artist who wanted to scan his whole collection. I feared that it would die on me some day...

The reality is that previewing negatives using coolscan takes a lot of time unless if you have the film roll adapter installed. Then when it comes to single frame scans, Plusteks can be quite good. If you don't rely on automatic options, I argue that you can get results very similar to the Coolscan. But again, you have to do everything yourself, including removing the color cast (easy, but involves some minimal calculation).

If you shoot silver film, don't pay for infrared. Just buy the cheaper scanner with no ICE correction. And don't pay for the software that comes with Plustek. Just do it yourself on Vuescan. This will cost you about 400$ to buy, so, you wouldn't even need to wait.

In the meantime: Send your stuff to Carmencita Film Lab (since you are in Europe). I have heard a lot of good things about them.
 
One alternative could be making small darkroom prints (if you have the ability), then scanning them on your flatbed scanner at high resolution so you could make large digital prints. Worked for me a few times, plus it's a pleasure to make wet prints.
 
If 35mm black and white film is your main thing, I think far and away your best bang for the buck option will be to get a good digital body and macro lens set-up over a light box.

I use a 16 mp m4/3 camera with the olympus OM 50mm f/3.5 macro and am extremely pleased. Total cost for the setup (not including light box/tripod and buying used) was about $225 USD.
A "full-frame" scan if a negative will net you roughly a sharp 3000 dpi (or 13~ish MP). Plenty of good options exist in APS-C arena too. The OM macro on m4/3 has no distortion that I can see, either. After developing I pull the whole uncut roll through a negative holder one frame at a time taking a photo for each. Using GIMP and BIMP I can easily batch-invert and rotate (if needed) the whole roll. Then everything else usually needs a curves or levels adjustment to get it looking right.
10179623006

Since I can't figure out how to link to Flickr images anymore, here is the link to a "3000 dpi" example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68243197@N04/10179623006 . There are other examples in my photostream also.

Going in for full 1:1 magnification will take 6 frames to cover the negative and stitch together. This will yield a fairly sharp (for this lens, at least) 6000 dpi equivalent image that looks like this at 100%: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68243197@N04/12488483855/

Of course, keeping everything level and consistent here takes some skill, but it is doable. Other macro lenses may be better at 1:1 magnification too. See this thread I started last year for more info: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031

It is not easy to get good results from c41. E-6 is OK but color never quite matches (DR of sensor can't handle that of the slide on light table - maybe HDR could help but haven't tried.)

Good luck and let us know what you go for.
 
It sounds like you are young. This means, that longer term you are likely to shoot MF B&W film too.
I remember, I could get reasonable quality from my Epson V750 for 8, max 10 times enlargement - that is an A4 print from 35mm, and a 50cm wide print from 6x... So for the short term, I would try to swap your scanner with the V 700/750 model. Later on, it would be better to save some more money on a CS 9000 or equivalent.
 
My take - for a negative as small as 35mm, no flatbed or copy stand arrangement will give you the actual sharpness afforded by a dedicated film scanner - the Nikon and Minolta models mentioned are the better choices, although the higher-end models from Plustek/Pacific Primefilm come close at a cheaper price - and the dedicated 35mm models leave out the ability to scan medium and large format. prices for 120-capable film scanners go up exponentially. Another thing to consider is that film scanning is becoming more "niche" and the selection of devices that offer real quality are limited. Older devices are often difficult to use with modern computers also.

I think most scans from film work best at the classic 10x enlargement, so A4 is about right - and adding resolution to 35 scans often shows more grain without much more detail. The ICE is really a big deal, I discovered, as my color scans are reasonably clean but BW scans need quite a bit of spotting brush work since the ICE will not work with them - and I feel dust that would not show in a conventional enlargement is made very visible by these film scanners.

Below is a scan from TMAX 100 on PrimeFilm 7200 (at the real hardware res of 3600 - then scaled for web display)

1200424.jpg
 
I think the DSLR scanning method can work well. Here's an example done with a 16MP Sony NEX-5N with an adapted Canon FD 50/3.5 macro, 1:1 extension tube with the Nikon ES-6 slide copier and a Nikon filmstrip holder:



Click on it to see a bigger version. It was shot on a Nikon F3, 50/1.4 AI, Acros 100, Rodinal 1+50.

These days I've been using a Pakon 135+ mostly because it's convenient and easy and looks good once you have it dialed in:



Also the same Nikon film setup.
 
I have an Epson V500. I think it produces great prints up to 6x the linear dimension of the film scanned. Thus, 12x18" from a 2x3 negative. That would mean 6x9" from a 35mm negative. In my view, 20x30cm which is 8x12" would just just a bit of a stretch, probably OK.

Here's a discussion thread with several examples, including one of mine, a file ready to print at 12x18" from 120 Ektar.

I understand the V600 is a bit better than the V500. The V750 is clearly better still.

The Nikon Coolscan products will do just about double the resolution of the Epson V500/V600.
 
I also am currently using an Epson V600. I find it does a very good job with medium format film, but is very, very hit-and-miss with 35mm. I haven't had the pleasure of using a Nikon Coolscan and they are out of my price range, so I'm mulling over getting a Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7200 and a Plustek 8200i (or similar). These are both 35mm only and seem to be either the next best thing or equivalent in quality to the Coolscans, depending on who you go by. That, and they're still being made and can be had for a lot less.

If you've got your heart set on a Coolscan, then depending on how much of a problem you find your scans, you can either stop scanning altogether (or perhaps move towards a DSLR scan approach as mentioned above) or just continue scanning to get a basic look at what your negatives look like as a positive. I still find the V600 is fine for sharing on the internet or small prints up to 5x7 (8x10 and larger and it becomes hit-and-miss).

Good luck!
 
I used to have a Canoscan FS4000US. I found it to be very good, and you could get 3 or 4 of them for 1000 Euros.

Some of the Plusteks look really goo too, and the Pakon makes up for a slight lack of resolution with it's superb speed. I think the Pakon basically scans at 6MP, more than enough for an 8x10 print.
 
Thank you all for chiming in. After reading all of this and digesting it I realized a few things and the most important thing was that so far I have been a rather timid lurker on the forum so it’s time to put the money where the mouth is as they say :)

So this is what I will do the next few weeks. It might take me a while but I will make this happen.

1- I will find one of my photos that has a good tonal range. I will scan said photo with the Epson at the 1500ppi range and through a local lab’s scanner at the 3000-4000ppi range.

2- I will run the exact same PS script on both images. The script will remain as simple as possible.

3- I will make good digital files that can be uploaded to the web.

4- I will make two prints of each image: One in A4 size and the other 10X15cm. I will scan all four prints at a normal scanning rate for a printed image 300-500ppi.

Once all that is done I will post it all for you to look at and comment.

I have seen so many posts where people take an incredible amount of time explainign certain things and even though I don’t have the experience that some do, I think my two cents will be worth exactly what they are: Two cents :)

Thanks!

Guy.
 
Another scanner you may look for is the Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. I have used it for about four years now, and it is a great scanner. It does up to 4800 dpi. Here is a review you can check out:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/dimage.shtml

I was lucky enough to get it for about $600, but today they are probably higher in price.

You can check out my flickr photos, pretty much all photos there were scanned with the Minolta: https://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/

I have also used a Canoscan FS4000US. "thegman" appears to be happy with it, I too found the resolution and "out-of-the-box" scans quite nice, but somehow my scans all come out stretched... I am pretty sure it's just a problem with my scanner though. Overall I think it's quite a capable scanner too.

Good luck.
 
Hallo,

keep your Epson for a possible medium format future or for contact sheets and get yourself for 220€ a Plustek Opticfilm 8100. You Don´t need the Infrared channel of the 8200 and safe some money that you can spend on vuescan or the like. Scan flat and adjust endpoints/curve in PS. Or use ColorNeg for CN-Fillm. Thats easy and you dont have to spend your 1000€. The Nikons aren´t that much better than the plustek en contraire - you get a decent new machine, with 95% the reslustion of the nikon without its hard light source and risk, as the nikon might already be old and the used marked is predominantly one of lemons...

Anyway the dedicated 35mm Film Scanners by Plustek or Reflecta are perfectly fine and absolutely affordable. So why bother with old Minoltas or Nikons?

schöne Grüße,

Johann
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom