wakarimasen
Well-known
So, does anyone use either of these.....
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Why do people buy BMW when a Civic will get you where you're going just as well? It's just a matter of what you can afford that gets the job done... it's a fact with almost everything we buy that there's a diminishing return on investment the more you spend on something... for every notch up the quality scale you go the amount you pay goes up and the amount it's better than the last step goes down. No one's arguing that the Nikon or Noritsu isn't better than a flatbed... we're just saying they're FAR from unusable. I don't think you can argue that the Nikon that's 6 times the price of my Epson gives 6 times better scansAnd there's no way you can say the two pics I posted above are unusable.
I chuckle every time someone posts something like this. This forum is filled with men who spent thousands, sometimes tens of thousands on Leicas, Hasselblads, and other costly cameras and their expensive lenses. Then they cheap out and buy a scanner that isn't capable of realizing the full potential that the films exposed in those high end cameras can deliver. Why bother? I use a Nikon LS-8000 with glass carrier for everything. Yeah it isn't 6 times as good as an Epson, but even 10% better makes it worth every cent to me. The scanner (and printer) you use are the interpreters of your negative or slide....all your money spent on good gear, your time getting the pic exposed right in the field, the time you spend editing in Photoshop are all negated if you compromise in scanning and printing.
Gid
Well-known
I can't argue with this if ultimate quality is your goal, but if it is then maybe shooting LF or drum scans or a darkroom and enlarger or working with a master printer etc would be better. I get what I need from my flatbed, but its only a hobby and if I were a Pro I might think differently.
Jamie123
Veteran
Well, it's a lot easier to fetishize cameras than scanners so it's quite understandable why people would spend thousands on the former while saving on the latter.
But there's another aspect to it. A lot of people who have photography as a hobby enjoy the process more than the actual result. They buy Leicas and Hasselblads and whatnot because they like using them, not because they need the ultimate in quality so they are often happy with scanners which will do a decent enough job so that they can look at their photos on the screen.
Or, to stick with the car analogy, most people who buy a Porsche don't do so because they need to get from point A to B quickly.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I agree that getting a top quality scanner is very important.. but I think there's a big difference between going from one of those sub $100 dedicated film scanners or a really crappy flatbed to an Epson V500/V700... than from a V500 to a $2000 Nikon. It really depends on what resolution you want to end up with.
If all you want is a 400X600 web image from your negs all three will probably produce similar results. And I'd be willing to bet even up to pretty large prints you won't see a whole lot of difference between the V500 and the Nikon BUT the Nikon will go that extra step and at some resolution will start showing better detail and sharpness than the V500. It all depends on what you need as your end product.
And I would DEFINITELY recommend spending more money on bodies and lenses than on your scanner. A picture has exactly one moment in time to be taken... you can't go back and re-take it when you get a better lens... but you can always re-scan your negatives when you get a better scanner. So 5 years from now when I can pick up a better scanner with better resolving power at half the price of what was available to get today I'll be glad I spent the cash on glass instead back then
le vrai rdu
Well-known
I use an epson 4490, it feels just fine to me, and when I want a print I use the enlarger
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Well lenses, anyway (when talking about film: the body either works or it doesn't, money only helps in fixing it).
As for me: Happy with Slides (both mounted and unmounted) on the Epson V750. Especially 120 and larger (unmounted). Unhappy with color negatives.
Color correction of the V750 was a breeze, as it came with a transparency and software for that.
Another recommendation for the betterscanning MF holder and ANR glass. Also, ANR glass and rubber bands for 35mm. Nothing required for 4x5.
I would love a better scanner, but can't justify the expense to cover the range that I want to cover in film sizes.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
The question "can I get by using a flatbed for scanning medium format film" has come up on various discussion groups for the last 7-8 years. I believe I can summarize all the responses into one of three basic answers.
1) I have a dedicated 120 film scanner and cannot live with reduction in quality from using a flatbed, such as ...........
2) I have a flatbed scanner for my 120 film and find the quality is really good enough for ..........
3) I don't have either and don't even shoot 120 film but I read on the internet that..............
I am confident that your responses will fit into one of the above 3 categories when you really analyze them.
FWIW, I fit into 1)
kuzano
Veteran
This post makes the most sense to me.....
This post makes the most sense to me.....
After having gone through the process of attempting my own scans, I consider DIY scanning the weak link in the process of film to digital transition if a print image is the goal. I simply to not want to do that much post processing.
I would consider that if you take a picture with film that you intend to end up as a largish print on the wall, then a drum scan or an enlargement would be the most practical approace.
If all you want is web presentation, cheap scanners will probably work just fine, along with an adept post processing procedure.
This post makes the most sense to me.....
I use an epson 4490, it feels just fine to me, and when I want a print I use the enlarger
After having gone through the process of attempting my own scans, I consider DIY scanning the weak link in the process of film to digital transition if a print image is the goal. I simply to not want to do that much post processing.
I would consider that if you take a picture with film that you intend to end up as a largish print on the wall, then a drum scan or an enlargement would be the most practical approace.
If all you want is web presentation, cheap scanners will probably work just fine, along with an adept post processing procedure.
le vrai rdu
Well-known
I agree, that's what I say, scanner for the web , and darkroom for prints
Glenn2
Well-known
I use both CS-5000 and Epson 3200 for my scans and shoot with a lot of formats, but mainly 35mm when using film. Have found that the flatbed wasn't as sharp as the CS-5000 for 35mm but it depends what you want to do with the images. If just for the web or small prints a flat bed will probably be fine. If you are thinking of big prints every little bit of resolution and quality counts big and if your pockets are deep, why not? The ICE feature on the Nikon is worth its weight in gold and something to consider. Problem is ICE only works with colour or silver free B&W films.
This thread may be of interest. I posted images using the same neg in both scanners and also what ICE is capable of. The images are at #28,29,36,37 .... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27336
Glenn
This thread may be of interest. I posted images using the same neg in both scanners and also what ICE is capable of. The images are at #28,29,36,37 .... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27336
Glenn
stephaneb
Established
ICC Profiling
ICC Profiling
On a side note, seeing people agonizing about resolution differences that will only materialize on the 4 big prints they make per year while skimping on the profiling is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion.
The people who actually need the Nikon (or Imacon or Creo) resolutions do not hesitate to buy it. People who hesitate, most often, want more than they need. I should know, I fall myself very often in that trap. I happily use a V750 for medium format and a Plustek 7500i for 35mm.
The V750 gives about 2400 useful dpi. Scanning at 3200 looks good too, but more is definitely wasted. But think about what this means. At 2400dpi, a 6x6 neg will give a file with about 5400x5400 pixels. At 240 dpi, that gives a very nice 22x22" print. If that is not enough, it means one has at least a 24" wide printer, and those people should not wonder is $2000 is too much for a scanner.
ICC Profiling
On a side note, seeing people agonizing about resolution differences that will only materialize on the 4 big prints they make per year while skimping on the profiling is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion.
The people who actually need the Nikon (or Imacon or Creo) resolutions do not hesitate to buy it. People who hesitate, most often, want more than they need. I should know, I fall myself very often in that trap. I happily use a V750 for medium format and a Plustek 7500i for 35mm.
The V750 gives about 2400 useful dpi. Scanning at 3200 looks good too, but more is definitely wasted. But think about what this means. At 2400dpi, a 6x6 neg will give a file with about 5400x5400 pixels. At 240 dpi, that gives a very nice 22x22" print. If that is not enough, it means one has at least a 24" wide printer, and those people should not wonder is $2000 is too much for a scanner.
AlastairBird
M2 Newbie
I have a Microtek M1 Pro and a Nikon 8000. I scan all formats with both (well I used to until I got the 8000). I, too, was quite alarmed at the price of the 9000, but I managed to find an 8000 (with the glass holder) for $1100 US, which was a great but not outrageous price. I have found:
That scanning negatives (both colour and BW but especially colour) is much more of an art than I ever expected. I have read that people happily scan negs from the same film using the same settings every time and they're perfectly happy with the results, but I have found a considerable amount of Hmmm is involved - as in - hmmm, is this too red? Is this too flat? Is it too contrasty? Is it worth putting this much effort into a single frame?
I am also amazed at how different software renders different scans - from the same film on the same scanner. I've purchased both Vuescan and Silverfast for the Nikon (it came free with the M1 Pro). For me, with my scanning abilities, the Silverfast scans were HANDS DOWN better than the Vuescan images. However, it's obvious that Vuescan has an infinite amount of options and I'm sure with the right amount of time I could get Vuescan to work for me. But I decided to pony up for Silverfast and use both scanners with the same software. I would make sure I try the demo versions of every piece of software I could get my hands on. I did...
Also, the value of infra-red dust removal cannot be overstated. I am amazed at the effectiveness of this aspect of the scanners and after using it I'm quite sure I could not live without it. Of course, as I recall, it doesn't work on BW negs, but for colour negs and transparencies it's nothing short of a Godsend from a workflow point of view.
That scanning negatives (both colour and BW but especially colour) is much more of an art than I ever expected. I have read that people happily scan negs from the same film using the same settings every time and they're perfectly happy with the results, but I have found a considerable amount of Hmmm is involved - as in - hmmm, is this too red? Is this too flat? Is it too contrasty? Is it worth putting this much effort into a single frame?
I am also amazed at how different software renders different scans - from the same film on the same scanner. I've purchased both Vuescan and Silverfast for the Nikon (it came free with the M1 Pro). For me, with my scanning abilities, the Silverfast scans were HANDS DOWN better than the Vuescan images. However, it's obvious that Vuescan has an infinite amount of options and I'm sure with the right amount of time I could get Vuescan to work for me. But I decided to pony up for Silverfast and use both scanners with the same software. I would make sure I try the demo versions of every piece of software I could get my hands on. I did...
Also, the value of infra-red dust removal cannot be overstated. I am amazed at the effectiveness of this aspect of the scanners and after using it I'm quite sure I could not live without it. Of course, as I recall, it doesn't work on BW negs, but for colour negs and transparencies it's nothing short of a Godsend from a workflow point of view.
Steve M.
Veteran
I don't print from scanned negs anymore, but when I did the Nikon 8000 w/ glass neg carrier was very, very good. Unfortunately, when you scan B&W negs at 4000 DPI you can get some odd things going on w/ the grain. I was usually able to smooth it out in Photoshop w/ a little Gaussian blur though.
Now I use an old Epson 2450 flatbed scanner primarily to proof my MF and LF negs (since I can't really see what's going on when the values are reversed on a light table). For the $100 I paid, it does a good job w/ 4x5 and 120, but I have to tape the negs to the glass as the film holders are horrible. Bit of a pain, but it works. 35mm is hopeless.
This scan was plenty good enough for the web or even a small print. Of course the detail would have been far higher w/ a dedicated film scanner, but using the Epson I can get an idea if a shot might merit an enlargement and wet print.
Now I use an old Epson 2450 flatbed scanner primarily to proof my MF and LF negs (since I can't really see what's going on when the values are reversed on a light table). For the $100 I paid, it does a good job w/ 4x5 and 120, but I have to tape the negs to the glass as the film holders are horrible. Bit of a pain, but it works. 35mm is hopeless.
This scan was plenty good enough for the web or even a small print. Of course the detail would have been far higher w/ a dedicated film scanner, but using the Epson I can get an idea if a shot might merit an enlargement and wet print.
Last edited:
wintoid
Back to film
4) I used to have a flatbed and now have a Minolta Multi Pro. Dust/flatness management is the only reason. The quality is better, sure, but this thing is really convenient, with much less fiddling.
mrisney
Well-known
I recently took a digital scanning and printing class at
Portland NewSpace led by a master printer Tyler Boley out of Seattle.
We had access to Hahnemuhle papers, Jon Cone inks, drum scanners, and flat beds.
Epson printers, even the lowly R2880 are really something, especially if you take
the time to use a datatcolor spyder for your monitor, set up the right ink profiles,
and calibrate your system properly.
A drum scanner is a serious investment, and a steep learning curve.
But I was pretty disgusted with the Epson V700,
and I remember how many on this forum were praising it.
What standards do you have ? Because I thought the scanning images were really poor
compared to even that of the Minolta Dimage Pro (dedicated).
After that class, I auctioned off that Epson without any hesitation.
my 6x6 images that I scanned using that flatbed - suck.
And I gave up on a nice Polaroid 600SE and Fuji FP-100C Professional, because the reflective acquisition
setting was lousy on the V700, a flat bed in my mind, should at least be able to do reflective.
This image is MUCH sharper on the Fuji instant
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrisney/3612278978/sizes/m/
I am in no way advocating trying to come up with a 10-15K budget to get an Imacon,
but even with the dead product line of the Minolta Dimage, there is a BIG difference,
between a dedicated and a flatbed scanner for 120, maybe for 4x5 you could get away with it,
and even then my experiences, and those of the class, the better results were with 4x5 and Velvia on flatbeds
But I am all ears on hearing the virtues of SilverScan vs VueScan
Portland NewSpace led by a master printer Tyler Boley out of Seattle.
We had access to Hahnemuhle papers, Jon Cone inks, drum scanners, and flat beds.
Epson printers, even the lowly R2880 are really something, especially if you take
the time to use a datatcolor spyder for your monitor, set up the right ink profiles,
and calibrate your system properly.
A drum scanner is a serious investment, and a steep learning curve.
But I was pretty disgusted with the Epson V700,
and I remember how many on this forum were praising it.
What standards do you have ? Because I thought the scanning images were really poor
compared to even that of the Minolta Dimage Pro (dedicated).
After that class, I auctioned off that Epson without any hesitation.
my 6x6 images that I scanned using that flatbed - suck.
And I gave up on a nice Polaroid 600SE and Fuji FP-100C Professional, because the reflective acquisition
setting was lousy on the V700, a flat bed in my mind, should at least be able to do reflective.
This image is MUCH sharper on the Fuji instant
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrisney/3612278978/sizes/m/
I am in no way advocating trying to come up with a 10-15K budget to get an Imacon,
but even with the dead product line of the Minolta Dimage, there is a BIG difference,
between a dedicated and a flatbed scanner for 120, maybe for 4x5 you could get away with it,
and even then my experiences, and those of the class, the better results were with 4x5 and Velvia on flatbeds
But I am all ears on hearing the virtues of SilverScan vs VueScan
wakarimasen
Well-known
This is perhaps a little more in keeping with what I had in mind. I know that a dedicated film scanner will always be better than a flatbed. Similarly a drum scan will be better again, with the ultimate quality perhaps being reserved for a professional wet print. In the same way, my Fuju GS645S will provide a better image than my Nettar; a Mamiya 645 will better both and a Hasselblad will be another step improvement. 4X5 can beat the pants of all of them I expect! In all aspects of life, there is always somehting better, and almost inevitably more expensive!
Whilst still finding my way in the world of film I am trying to do as much myself (home developing begins this year for B&W) and the initial problem is looking at what I have 'taken.' I need to get a representitive scan, to determine if the negative is worthy of something more (i.e. pro scanning or wet printing) whilst still giving me the opportunity for posting on the web or making a 'quick and dirty' print on our deskjet (sacrilege).
For this reason (and not being in the possession of an unlimited budget) I considered getting an older scanner (such as the Epson 3200) if it could satisfy my needs for MF negatives. I could then set about profiling my monitor, which I'm sure is another discussion in itself....
Best regards,
RoyM
wakarimasen
Well-known
Well ... I just bought an Epson 3200 for £22.50 off ebay. It's supposedly in good condition, working and just missing the original software. Is this available, or should I just press on with VueScan?
Best regards,
RoyM
Best regards,
RoyM
le vrai rdu
Well-known
Did you checked epson website ? There you can get epson scan
Robin P
Well-known
http://www.epson.co.uk/Scanners/Epson-Perfection-3200-Photo/Drivers-Support?supportLandingPage=true
is the place to go.
It's been my experience that the original manufacturer's software gives better results quicker and easier than 3rd party software such as Vuescan or Silverfast (same goes for digital raw conversion software, but that's another story...).
Cheers, Robin