click
Established
Before I posted this question I literally read every thread on this site concerning scanning and I still don't know so I thought I'd ask the specific questions I have. I have also read just about every legitimate review of scanners I could find. I've spent over a month researching this so I'm not just blindly posting I just don't know about the real world results of scanners. I'm also on a budget. There are so many different specifications I'm just not sure.
So here's my dilemma; I need a scanner that is better then the Ion Best Buy junk than I have now. I need it to;
Scan black and white negatives mostly but some color.
Be capable of making at least 11 by 14 inch prints, or larger if possible. I'm used to darkroom printing and I love the beauty of it. I've heard people say that they can achieve even better results with scanning and printing from a computer, is this really true? I want beauty, not just acceptable prints.
The amount of time to scan isn't important to me but the quality is paramount. I do not have space to make wet prints so my output will be exclusively digital and I want something that is sellable quality.
Must be compatible with the latest Mac operating system and the Epson Stylus pro 3880.
I also don't truly understand all the lingo;
Dmax is the density that the scanner is capable of? Correct? What density does it take to create a beautiful print. What are the densities of various scanners?
Dpi in a real world print? What does this really mean? I know the web is 300 but what about when making a print? What does it really need to be to produce results? When I look at my negatives through a loupe I see amazing details. I want to see them in a print too.
I've read that the Plustek 7600i is actually an excellent scanner for the money and I can afford it has anyone here made prints with the combination of the 7600i, Mac and The Epson 3880? At this time I really can't afford to buy a Nikon Coolscan but if the quality of the Plustek is really that far below I can just keep saving. I am stressed because I have lots of people who want prints from me and I don't want to give them inferior quality and my budget is focused on a 50mm Summilux which is essential for a project I have coming up.
Thanks for all your help!
So here's my dilemma; I need a scanner that is better then the Ion Best Buy junk than I have now. I need it to;
Scan black and white negatives mostly but some color.
Be capable of making at least 11 by 14 inch prints, or larger if possible. I'm used to darkroom printing and I love the beauty of it. I've heard people say that they can achieve even better results with scanning and printing from a computer, is this really true? I want beauty, not just acceptable prints.
The amount of time to scan isn't important to me but the quality is paramount. I do not have space to make wet prints so my output will be exclusively digital and I want something that is sellable quality.
Must be compatible with the latest Mac operating system and the Epson Stylus pro 3880.
I also don't truly understand all the lingo;
Dmax is the density that the scanner is capable of? Correct? What density does it take to create a beautiful print. What are the densities of various scanners?
Dpi in a real world print? What does this really mean? I know the web is 300 but what about when making a print? What does it really need to be to produce results? When I look at my negatives through a loupe I see amazing details. I want to see them in a print too.
I've read that the Plustek 7600i is actually an excellent scanner for the money and I can afford it has anyone here made prints with the combination of the 7600i, Mac and The Epson 3880? At this time I really can't afford to buy a Nikon Coolscan but if the quality of the Plustek is really that far below I can just keep saving. I am stressed because I have lots of people who want prints from me and I don't want to give them inferior quality and my budget is focused on a 50mm Summilux which is essential for a project I have coming up.
Thanks for all your help!
click
Established
No one has anything to add?
Jamie123
Veteran
A little more patience my friend.
What do you want to scan? 35mm? 120 film? 4x5?
How much do you want to spend?
What do you want to scan? 35mm? 120 film? 4x5?
How much do you want to spend?
martin s
Well-known
Had a long talk today about scanners, I guess I'd get a flatbed to make "contact sheets" and look for a place to send my stuff to if I have to print large (preferably a place with an Imacon / Drum scanner)
martin
martin
Bruin
Noktonian
Look for a used Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV or 5400. You'll also need a copy of Vuescan for your Mac, and I recommend Qimage for your uprezzing and printing. Don't cheap out on the software! They will really squeeze the most out of your scanner and printer.
SDIV @ 3200dpi will get you 10x15 prints @ 300dpi. You won't see much improvement scanning at higher resolutions than this. If you can afford a 5400, I would go for that.
Don't worry about Dmax. The actual Dmax of most scanners is less than whatever is advertised, anyways. They all have enough for negatives. What makes a real difference is developing your negatives for scanning - low contrast is better.
The nice thing about the KM scanners is that you can easily resell them for what you paid if they don't meet your needs. I also prefer their light sources over the Coolscans--more diffuse, accentuating the grain less.
SDIV @ 3200dpi will get you 10x15 prints @ 300dpi. You won't see much improvement scanning at higher resolutions than this. If you can afford a 5400, I would go for that.
Don't worry about Dmax. The actual Dmax of most scanners is less than whatever is advertised, anyways. They all have enough for negatives. What makes a real difference is developing your negatives for scanning - low contrast is better.
The nice thing about the KM scanners is that you can easily resell them for what you paid if they don't meet your needs. I also prefer their light sources over the Coolscans--more diffuse, accentuating the grain less.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
For b&w production print I used analog darkroom, print a contact sheet, id the few good ones. 11x14 is easily achievable. If you only want to share photos on the web, a cheap epson 4490 will scan just fine.
tammons
Established
I assume you are talking about 35mm, so here is my input.
Depends at what dpi you want to print, but I look at scanners from the perspective of resolving as much detail as possible at a native scan rez, with a max 2 pixel soft edge.
IE slightly soft edges. A 2 pixel soft edge is easy to clean up with sharpening. A 4-5 pixel edge is not.
IE a hard contrast edge would be 0 pixel soft edge.
I also look at what it takes to print on a lightjet at 204 dpi which equals 4lp/mm in print.
4lp/mm is sort of a standard 20" view distance print. Good for museums etc.
Not critically sharp but good enough.
To expand on that lets say you are shooting microfilm and a Leica and can actually resolve 120 lp/mm on film. In theory if you had a good enough scanner or enlarger you could enlarge that image 30x and it would still look great at a 20" view distance.
Assuming you are shooting 35mm and might crop a bit, lets say you will need a native rez for a 12x18 print. For a lightjet print works out to about 2448 x 3672 pixels.
That means you basically need a sharp 2400-2500 dpi scan to get there.
If you are going to try and print at 300 dpi native rez on your inkjet you would need 3600 x 5400 file. That is about 20 megapixel file.
So in that case roughly a sharp 3600 dpi scan.
IMO the Epson scanners will not get you there with the sharpest crispest results.
The latest Pacific Image scanner IE the PF 7250 pro3 will, probably the latest Plustek.
Nikon 4000ED, 5000ED, V will, Canon FS4000 (just missed one of those for $250) and quite a few other 4000 dpi scanners out of production will do it
You ask about Dmax. Its important too and think of it as the ability of the scanner to see into dark areas of slide film.
IE set the software to capture the highlights, and a 2.5 dmax scanner like an Epson would have a lot more blocked up shadow areas than a 4 dmax scanner. Opposite for negative.
I had really good luck scanning B+W negatives with the Pacific image 7250 pro3, but I am sending back tomorrow as it color streaks on severely underexposed slide and I already have a drum scanner.
Here are some 3600 dpi scans done with the 7250 pro3.
I am 99% it will run on a mac.
Feel free to download a few and print them. They are just test images.
http://www.pbase.com/tammons/pi_7250_pro_3_test_scans
Depends at what dpi you want to print, but I look at scanners from the perspective of resolving as much detail as possible at a native scan rez, with a max 2 pixel soft edge.
IE slightly soft edges. A 2 pixel soft edge is easy to clean up with sharpening. A 4-5 pixel edge is not.
IE a hard contrast edge would be 0 pixel soft edge.
I also look at what it takes to print on a lightjet at 204 dpi which equals 4lp/mm in print.
4lp/mm is sort of a standard 20" view distance print. Good for museums etc.
Not critically sharp but good enough.
To expand on that lets say you are shooting microfilm and a Leica and can actually resolve 120 lp/mm on film. In theory if you had a good enough scanner or enlarger you could enlarge that image 30x and it would still look great at a 20" view distance.
Assuming you are shooting 35mm and might crop a bit, lets say you will need a native rez for a 12x18 print. For a lightjet print works out to about 2448 x 3672 pixels.
That means you basically need a sharp 2400-2500 dpi scan to get there.
If you are going to try and print at 300 dpi native rez on your inkjet you would need 3600 x 5400 file. That is about 20 megapixel file.
So in that case roughly a sharp 3600 dpi scan.
IMO the Epson scanners will not get you there with the sharpest crispest results.
The latest Pacific Image scanner IE the PF 7250 pro3 will, probably the latest Plustek.
Nikon 4000ED, 5000ED, V will, Canon FS4000 (just missed one of those for $250) and quite a few other 4000 dpi scanners out of production will do it
You ask about Dmax. Its important too and think of it as the ability of the scanner to see into dark areas of slide film.
IE set the software to capture the highlights, and a 2.5 dmax scanner like an Epson would have a lot more blocked up shadow areas than a 4 dmax scanner. Opposite for negative.
I had really good luck scanning B+W negatives with the Pacific image 7250 pro3, but I am sending back tomorrow as it color streaks on severely underexposed slide and I already have a drum scanner.
Here are some 3600 dpi scans done with the 7250 pro3.
I am 99% it will run on a mac.
Feel free to download a few and print them. They are just test images.
http://www.pbase.com/tammons/pi_7250_pro_3_test_scans
nrb
Nuno Borges
I'm happy with my KM Dimage Scan Dual IV. Only snag is that I can't get service where I live, so I've had to buy 3 of them. 2 work faultlessly, the 3rd needs attention.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Here's the problem. Everyone wants top-level results, but most aren't willing to pay for it. They want the $49 DVD or the budget model.
In photography, it's often -- NOT ALWAYS -- true that paying more will give you a higher quality product.
I would simply advise you to consider buying the best product that you can afford. Or wait until you can afford it. Your final product will only be as good as the weakest/lowest quality component.
With that rant out of the way ... you should consider a dedicated film scanner. One thing to keep in mind: Many of the companies that made these no longer make them.
The Nikon and Minolta scanner seem to get very high marks. I saw a magazine review a few years ago that said scans with Epson's V750 with the wet mount delivered results that were nearly indistinguishable from a dedicated film scanner.
By the way, I read somewhere that 360 dpi was an ideal setting for printing images. And you should print the files as TIFFs and not JPGs, especially those that are from 35mm.
In photography, it's often -- NOT ALWAYS -- true that paying more will give you a higher quality product.
I would simply advise you to consider buying the best product that you can afford. Or wait until you can afford it. Your final product will only be as good as the weakest/lowest quality component.
With that rant out of the way ... you should consider a dedicated film scanner. One thing to keep in mind: Many of the companies that made these no longer make them.
The Nikon and Minolta scanner seem to get very high marks. I saw a magazine review a few years ago that said scans with Epson's V750 with the wet mount delivered results that were nearly indistinguishable from a dedicated film scanner.
By the way, I read somewhere that 360 dpi was an ideal setting for printing images. And you should print the files as TIFFs and not JPGs, especially those that are from 35mm.
tammons
Established
>> I saw a magazine review a few years ago that said scans with Epson's V750 with the wet mount delivered results that were nearly indistinguishable from a dedicated film scanner.
I have seen those sorts of statements and its just not true. I used to have one and I compared it to several different scanners, drum scanner, KM 5400II, and maybe a couple of others.
I have actually seen 35mm images on the net that were very close, but that was not my conclusion after buying one. I laid into several testers via email and told them they needed to shoot some sharp images/film before they did a comparison that the entire world was basing scanner purchases from.
Only thing I figured out is they were just scanning soggy images.
With microfilm scanned on the v750 at 4800 dpi and reduced to 2000 dpi, it still does not capture all the fine detail that a 2000 dpi drum scan will. If it was really capturing a true 40 lp/mm it should do better than that and they should be close.
IMO the V750 is a decent scanner and adequate for medium sized prints like 10X if its a really sharp image. Overall though it is just not that sharp.
If you scan a B+W negatives in color with the V750 you will see some pretty deep CA on high contrast image edges. Although the lens is better than a 4870 say, its still not even close to high quality optics.
IMO about 40 lp/mm is about all you will get out of one, compared to 75-80lp/mm out of a Nikon or other good 4000 dpi film scanner, or 100+ out of a KM 5400II.
The KM 5400 II actually resolved more detail than my Howtek 4500 but it has a serious defect in the film holder in that it does not hold the film flat.
Check out these scan comparisons....
http://www.pbase.com/tammons/scan_comparisons
I have seen those sorts of statements and its just not true. I used to have one and I compared it to several different scanners, drum scanner, KM 5400II, and maybe a couple of others.
I have actually seen 35mm images on the net that were very close, but that was not my conclusion after buying one. I laid into several testers via email and told them they needed to shoot some sharp images/film before they did a comparison that the entire world was basing scanner purchases from.
Only thing I figured out is they were just scanning soggy images.
With microfilm scanned on the v750 at 4800 dpi and reduced to 2000 dpi, it still does not capture all the fine detail that a 2000 dpi drum scan will. If it was really capturing a true 40 lp/mm it should do better than that and they should be close.
IMO the V750 is a decent scanner and adequate for medium sized prints like 10X if its a really sharp image. Overall though it is just not that sharp.
If you scan a B+W negatives in color with the V750 you will see some pretty deep CA on high contrast image edges. Although the lens is better than a 4870 say, its still not even close to high quality optics.
IMO about 40 lp/mm is about all you will get out of one, compared to 75-80lp/mm out of a Nikon or other good 4000 dpi film scanner, or 100+ out of a KM 5400II.
The KM 5400 II actually resolved more detail than my Howtek 4500 but it has a serious defect in the film holder in that it does not hold the film flat.
Check out these scan comparisons....
http://www.pbase.com/tammons/scan_comparisons
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
If you only have a few hundred scans to make or you just need to upload a few images just use whatever digital camera you can get with a slide and negative adapter and take pictures of the negatives.
If you're trying to produce professional quality images in large files your going to need to spend some money. However if you only need to add some images to a website these should be small files so they don't get ripped off anyway, about anything will do.
If you're trying to produce professional quality images in large files your going to need to spend some money. However if you only need to add some images to a website these should be small files so they don't get ripped off anyway, about anything will do.