vegas
Member
alright rangefinder lovers..?
even though u lose some quality in the film scanning process, whats the best one to scan both 35mm and 6x6,6x7 film...? can you share your experience..? Thanks in advance
Vegas.
even though u lose some quality in the film scanning process, whats the best one to scan both 35mm and 6x6,6x7 film...? can you share your experience..? Thanks in advance
Vegas.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
The best scanner? That will set you back farther than you want to go.
I think most people would agree that the best deal would be an Epson V700 (or 750). I have access to a V700 and an Imacon X-series, and honestly the differences are negligible with smaller prints. An imacon costs upwards of $10,000 and the V700 is around $600 new. The Imacon needs to go in for service usually once a year or two to get calibrated, the V700 doesn't. When the V700 dies, I'll just get another one. Epson makes a much cheaper V500 for around $150 or so, I've never used it but it might be worth starting with if you're not sure how much you want to invest...
I think most people would agree that the best deal would be an Epson V700 (or 750). I have access to a V700 and an Imacon X-series, and honestly the differences are negligible with smaller prints. An imacon costs upwards of $10,000 and the V700 is around $600 new. The Imacon needs to go in for service usually once a year or two to get calibrated, the V700 doesn't. When the V700 dies, I'll just get another one. Epson makes a much cheaper V500 for around $150 or so, I've never used it but it might be worth starting with if you're not sure how much you want to invest...
thegman
Veteran
One scanner for both, at a reasonable price is the Epson V700. The Nikons etc. are certainly better, but they're not getting any younger, and still very pricey. This review is interesting:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm
It does indeed show the Nikon is sharper, no question about it, but for how many of us is the difference enough?
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm
It does indeed show the Nikon is sharper, no question about it, but for how many of us is the difference enough?
Vickko
Veteran
Well, if you are serious, I suggest the Nikon 9000. Discontinued, but you might find one on ebay, ag $3K and up.
vegas
Member
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
I have the Epson V600 and it scan medium formats from
6x45 to 6x9.,easy to use,nice scans and you don't have to sell
your bus pass to buy it.
Regards,Peter
6x45 to 6x9.,easy to use,nice scans and you don't have to sell
your bus pass to buy it.
Regards,Peter
vegas
Member
I have the Epson V600 and it scan medium formats from
6x45 to 6x9.,easy to use,nice scans and you don't have to sell
your bus pass to buy it.
Regards,Peter
That looks really nice, does it do 35mm as well..?
Thanks peter
Vegas
fuji645
Established
I've been using a Microtek Scanmaker i900 for about 8 years for 35mm and MF from 6x.5 to 6x7 and have had excellent results. I use the Lasersoft Silverfast software. It's a quirky combination but it works for me. It's a combination flatbed (for prints) and negative scanner. Here's their website: microtek.com. Also, if your purchase is not imminent, you can wait for the Plustek 120 scanner which is due out in October. Check plustek.com.
Good luck
Good luck
thegman
Veteran
redisburning
Well-known
personally I wouldn't bother with 35mm off a v700.
6x6 and up is fine. the large amount of pixels can make up for the smearing of fine detail for monitor viewing.
that being said, I scanned some Mamiya 7 shots taken on Acros on my 4490 and it was still glorious. to the degree that I would consider that set up a real alternative to a high megapixel ff dslr.
6x6 and up is fine. the large amount of pixels can make up for the smearing of fine detail for monitor viewing.
that being said, I scanned some Mamiya 7 shots taken on Acros on my 4490 and it was still glorious. to the degree that I would consider that set up a real alternative to a high megapixel ff dslr.
Dwig
Well-known
Anything up to and including 8x10. It comes with carriers for 4x6, 120/620 strips, 35mm strips, and 35mm mounted slides and a mask for 8x10. 8x10, with the mask, lies directly on the glass. You can put any other odd sized film on the glass with the 8x10 mask.
I've made "adapters" out of heavy black construction paper to allow me to put a range of old film sizes (122, 116/616, 127, 110, ...) into various of the strip/sheet carriers for my v700.
I use an Imagon at the gallery where I work. I scan 35mm slides for the artist who owns the gallery and then make prints, generally from 20x30 to 40x60. The scanner works very well, but isn't perfect. At home I use a v700 for scanning everything under the sun; my own film work from years ago (B&W and color; 16mm subminiture, 35mm, 120 6x6, 120 6x9, Polaroid 3 1/4 x 4 1/4, & 4x5) and, more often, old family film (B&W and color; 16mm subminiture through 3 1/2 x 5 1/4" film pack).
Despite being exposed to the Imagon, I'm quite happy with the results from my v700.
venchka
Veteran
Epson scanners are fine!
Epson scanners are fine!
One more time. Kodak Ektar 25 scans of two frames from a Pentax 6x7 & 150mm Takumar lens. Scanner: Epson Expression 1680, circa 2000. Bought for $150 a few years ago. Epson Scan software. Epson provided drivers for current operating systems. A HUGE PLUS! Original TIFF files processed in Lightroom 3.6 & stitched with Microsoft ICE.
Click on the small image for a screen filling version. The TIFF file is 53 megapixels. The Epson V700 might be a little better. End of discussion.
Wayne
Epson scanners are fine!
One more time. Kodak Ektar 25 scans of two frames from a Pentax 6x7 & 150mm Takumar lens. Scanner: Epson Expression 1680, circa 2000. Bought for $150 a few years ago. Epson Scan software. Epson provided drivers for current operating systems. A HUGE PLUS! Original TIFF files processed in Lightroom 3.6 & stitched with Microsoft ICE.
Click on the small image for a screen filling version. The TIFF file is 53 megapixels. The Epson V700 might be a little better. End of discussion.
Wayne
mfogiel
Veteran
You are probably best off to wait for the new Plustek 120, or get a used Nikon CS 9000. I have the Epson V750, and it is acceptable, particularly in B&W, till an enlargement of 8x, providing you can keep your film flat and you focus correctly your holder. This does not even give you a full 8x10 inch print from 35mm.
Muggins
Junk magnet
Hi Dwig,
I have the V500, so it might not be quite the same holders (it doesn't go up beyond 120 for starters), but I have some 127 negs, and some odd shaped ones too (25x25 on 127!) that I'd like to scan if possible (less important than the 120, as these I can print the old-fashioned way).
I assume that you've used stiff paper to make a holder that fits into your 120 holder - is that so? Sorry about the Spanish Inquisition, but I'm trying to get a clear picture in my mind.
I don't suppose you have any idea what grade your construction paper would be in grams per square metre, would you? Here in the UK, it's all graded in g/m2, and all the references I can find online are to 76 or 60lb, which is obviously a different system!
Thanks,
Adrian
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
I use the Epson 4990 and Epson software with excellent results and have printed up to 40x60 from 6x7 transparencies.
The very successful commercial photographer Kirk Tuck uses an Epson V500 for all his scanning. Here's a link to a helpful article he wrote about his method.
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/06/window-light-in-early-evening.html
The very successful commercial photographer Kirk Tuck uses an Epson V500 for all his scanning. Here's a link to a helpful article he wrote about his method.
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/06/window-light-in-early-evening.html
Dwig
Well-known
Nope, and I doubt very many would. The system here is old and complex. There is no universal conversion from # basis weight to g/m². (see: http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html ). I'm guessing, but what I used is likely to be in the 110-140 g/m² range. It's a stiff, rough paper but not in the class of card stock or cover stock. Sort of a very light watercolor paper.
I build a 5 layer stack, 3 paper & 2 tape, with the top and bottom paper strips wider than the middle three layers. The width of the middle 3 equals the difference in the width of the carrier's intended film (e.g. 120) and the film being used (e.g. 127). The top and bottom are wider by the width of the clear edge on the film being used (typically ~2-3mm).
Attachments
Muggins
Junk magnet
That's great, Dwig, thank you. I couldn't see how it could be made rigid enough, because I was thinking of a mask half the width round both sides, so that's a great help. I will have to get some paper this week and have a go.
Much appreciated!
Adrian
Much appreciated!
Adrian
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
vegas, if you are still reading, everyone has opinions on this, and of course whether you are happy with a result is subjective.
I like a sharp print. I'm happy with scans from my V500 at 6x the linear dimension of the negative. The V700/V750 should be somewhat better.
So, for me, I can make nice 12x14 inch prints from 6x7 using the Epson scanners.
See my post in this thread with a sample image.
I like a sharp print. I'm happy with scans from my V500 at 6x the linear dimension of the negative. The V700/V750 should be somewhat better.
So, for me, I can make nice 12x14 inch prints from 6x7 using the Epson scanners.
See my post in this thread with a sample image.
Dwig
Well-known
glad to help.
BTW, I make the whole thing at least 1/4"/6mm wider than needed. I then insert a negative and then trim the "adapter" strip plus neg to the correct total width. I also assemble the strip longer than the carrier's capacity and trim to the carrier's maximum after assembly.
I've built these for 110, 16mm subminiture and 126 for use in the 35mm carrier; 127 for the 120 carrier; and for 116, 122, and others for the 4x5 carrier. The adapters for the 4x5 carrier are done in the shape of an "L" to give better support and to mask the open area. I haven't found that necessary with the smaller films so far, but it could be needed with strongly curled negs. All of my old family negs have been stored flat in envelopes for all of their life. The neg in the sample pic happens to be one my paternal grandfather made during WWI with his Kodak Vest Pocket Special Autographic, which I now own.
Beemermark
Veteran
8X is about the limit for 35mm film. If you have a great lens (like a newer Summicron), a tripod, the right slow speed film and processing on the nose you might get to 11x14. You also need an exceptional lens on your enlarger to get to this size print.
Now a lot of this is subjective but it has also been a more or less accepted fact for at least 30 years. So I'd hestitate to blame the scanner.
I have a V700 and I think it does a great job. Even if you take 8x as a limit, that's a pretty good size wall hanger for a 6x7 negative. BTW the file sizes become huge. I scan 5x7 on mine at lower resolution and it's really big > 120 MB)