The Future of Film Scanners

If you haven't done it yet, please do consider wet printing. It really adds to the fun of photography, in a big way for me. That perfect composition and exposure you captured the other day, doesn't end there. There's a whole other world of possibilities making the print which can then be scanned on a flatbed (but still won't compare to the original).

Cheers
Steven
 
My Minolta Multi Pro came with a spare bulb (impossible to buy) and indeed was the single most attraction in it's purchase. Conversely, I handle it with kid gloves and am terrified of it's expiry. Only the absolute best goes through it after I've squeezed as much as I can from my Epson V700. My MF stuff is "acceptable" from the Epson but 35mm just has to go through the MP.

This is a real problem. The film industry needs to address the aspect asap, Bloody pointless IMHO offering new film stuff and ignoring the digital end i.e. scanning.

Can you just imagine the demand for a dedicated (say Minolta Elite 5400 type) scanner with back up and service?

They can add me to the mailing NOW!
 
Keith said:
...

That said I have seen a couple of darkroom prints from 35mm negatives lately that have made me re-thing my atitude to my current hybrid output ... there really is no comparison!
Click to expand...

Be careful Keith. If you ever start doing that, there will be no turning back. 😀
 
Not that long ago, Epson had a multi-format dedicated film scanner on the market, the F-3200. It looked rather good but seemed to disappear without trace rather quickly. Given the range of formats it could scan and the price, it would be nice to see an updated version on the market. A vain hope I suspect.
 
OK, so I appreciate that younger photographers have never had the opportunity to print in a darkroom and don't want to start - so how about using a flatbed for proofing, and then a DSLR to photograph the chosen superior negative or transparency (of whatever size) ?? This would require a framework to keep the set-up square, some sort of carrier for the original which keeps it extremely flat plus a light source. That sounds very d.i.y.-able surely ?
 
MartinP, that would require an ideally perfect lens to photograph the print or negative, in order to preserve the quality of the image... or you might as well not even try.
Due to the complications in that concept, it would almost be easier to do a wet print and leave it at that haha, or at least do a good scan of the print.
 
stupid leica said:
that would require an ideally perfect lens to photograph the print or negative, in order to preserve the quality of the image... or you might as well not even try.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd only say that I have duped thousands of transparencies using a similar setup (Bowens) while working in a professional lab, and macro lenses (or reversed enlarging lenses) can be pretty damn good at this sort of thing !

Ultimately of course there won't be a realistic alternative for home use 😉
 
While I have a film scanner, I too have wondered what I'd do if and when it dies on me.

I've been considering going at an old slide duplicator my Dad used with his old AE-1. It wasn't great with film, but I think that's because its optics were sketchy.

My thought was to take off the slide holder and somehow have that be the target for a digitial EOS wearing a EF 100/2.8 Macro lens capable of capturing 1:1.
 
My Museums

My Museums

I have a collection of film scanners, the older are SCSI and I keep old Macs around to use them. I like the look from them and in my opinion things haven't improved all that much over the years with scanners.

I also have an old Mac collection, and an old pre jpeg digital camera.

Someday this stuff will be worth something.

However, as with audio recording, the best option is to record analog, then manipulate and reproduce digitally. The same goes for photography. The weak link now is the loss of the scanner, as I think film will always be around, one's choices will diminish and cost will go up, but film is still by far the best to make and store an original image.

I don't waste my time with wet labs or shooting RAW. After all, there has to be a professional level of skill in shooting. Get it right the first time and the rest is far easier.
 
bwcolor said:
I love film and haven't room for a wet darkroom. Nikon is almost, or fully out of the film scanner business and other available film scanners are either $10K+, or low end. When my 9000ED gives up the ghost, what are we going to be left with under $3K? Are we talking flatbed scanners? I know that high end flatbeds produce great images, but I also know that my Epson V750 Pro doesn't equal the Nikon. Is flatbed quality under $3K going to keep us going? I was hoping that someone here has sufficient industry background to be able to provide an educated guess.
Click to expand...

I dont see a problem. The V700/V750 is quite good for large formats, the Reflecta ProScan 7200 is pretty good for 35mm. If you want max resolution shoot digital anyway. If you want all the goodness of film in a digital file there are nice enough scanners to chose from.
 
I feel that the lack of reasonable scanners for 35mm and 120 films is becoming an Achilles heel of the analog photography. It is true that scanning at home is nearly always a PITA, but many do not have the possibility to decently priced scans (FUji Frontier is just good for holiday 4x6" prints to my opinion).

I got a Microtek F1 because a shoot form 35mm up to 4x5 and quite honestly I have given up scanning the 35mm with a flat-bed - it is good just for web and small prints (not my target).

If I would not be shooting 4x5" and only 120 up to 6x9 I would consider the Coolscan 9000, but as it is discontinued it does not sound like the best investment.

I would like to see a decent quality scanner with reasonable software for 35mm and/or 120
 
Matus said:
I feel that the lack of reasonable scanners for 35mm and 120 films is becoming an Achilles heel of the analog photography. It is true that scanning at home is nearly always a PITA, but many do not have the possibility to decently priced scans (FUji Frontier is just good for holiday 4x6" prints to my opinion).

I got a Microtek F1 because a shoot form 35mm up to 4x5 and quite honestly I have given up scanning the 35mm with a flat-bed - it is good just for web and small prints (not my target).

If I would not be shooting 4x5" and only 120 up to 6x9 I would consider the Coolscan 9000, but as it is discontinued it does not sound like the best investment.

I would like to see a decent quality scanner with reasonable software for 35mm and/or 120
Click to expand...

I don't think the Coolscan 9000 is really discontinued. It just seems to be very hard to get hold of one.

I think the Noritsu minilab scanners are actually quite good but the problem is none of these labs offer anything useful as far as resolution is concerned.
 
as far as i know, almost all of the Noritsu and Fuji minilab scanners are VERY good, but the problem lies in the "loose nut behind the wheel". Most often, the lab techs don't know how to properly calibrate the scanners, and leave them on auto everything. On top of that, they often scan at incredibly low DPI's. NCPS, who offers great scanning services for cheap, uses one of these same systems. If you (or the lab, for that matter) know how to turn the dials on the Frontier, it is a very good scanner.
 
MartinP said:
OK, so I appreciate that younger photographers have never had the opportunity to print in a darkroom and don't want to start - so how about using a flatbed for proofing, and then a DSLR to photograph the chosen superior negative or transparency (of whatever size) ?? This would require a framework to keep the set-up square, some sort of carrier for the original which keeps it extremely flat plus a light source. That sounds very d.i.y.-able surely ?
Click to expand...

I was thinking along those lines. It would leave you with (for example) a D700 that you can take out to shoot, but also can rig up at home to shoot negatives or slides with. Would require a constant quality light source, preferably constant color temperature.

Would also require good software that can convert a negative shot to a positive image, just reversing RGB in Photoshop might get you some strange effects?

'Funny' thing is: while that rig might be good enough for a 35mm negative, larger formats might actually show less quality after 're-shooting' because the sensor pixel count would have to cover a greater surface.


In short: I'd rather have Voigtlander re-launch the Epson F-3200. I had one but sold it :bang::bang: and have never found another one.
 
Matus said:
I got a Microtek F1 because a shoot form 35mm up to 4x5 and quite honestly I have given up scanning the 35mm with a flat-bed - it is good just for web and small prints (not my target).
Click to expand...

Definitely try the V700.

"The Microtek ArtixScan F1 offers with its autofocus and the glass-less scanning of film material the best conditions for highest image quality. Unfortunately, these are not used: the much too low effective resolution and the relatively small range of density make this device for professional users which are the group of users Microtek actually focuses to, useless. Also the long initialization phase before each scanning is a very annoying factor.
There are partly much cheaper filmscanners on the market that provide some better results than the ArtixScan. By this way, even the practical details as the film adapter with a gripping mechanism for the film material do not help the ArtixScan F1 to get our purchase recommendation. The autofocus and the possibility of glass-less scanning of film material make the device much too expensive for the results it can provide. What a pity."
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/MicrotekArtixScanF1.html
 
Fujitsu, I know that page and have read this comment before I got the scanner. But I found a refurbished unit on German (!) eBay for a reasonable price with SilverFast Studio (I think) and calibration targets. While it is not perfect it does a very nice job - especially for 4x5. I consider getting the VueScan now as neither SilverFast now the Microtek scanning software allow for hardware adjustment of the lamp brightness.

Sure - for 35mm it is way too slow (like 1 hour for 24 34x36mm scans at 2400 spi) , but acceptable for 6x6 and nice for 4x5.

My only option for 4x5 are scans for about 7 euro done with Imacon X5. Surely the Imacon delivers superior quality but I also wanted to scan images I knew I would not print large or just want to put them on the web (also true for many 120 films I had).

This scanner is also quite loud and I find the SilverFast software quite crappy (layout, speed, operation, stability) but that is probably the best there is in this class.

Ta hardware (safe for the operation noise) seem quite strong. I also find the holders rather well done - I have rarely problem with the 4x5 film sagging and never with 120 strips.

Little advice with BW negs and Microtek F1 - try to scan them as color positives and convert in PS - much more shadow detail.

Enlarging the original 4 - 5 times yields nice prints when done carefully. I have printed THIS photo to 50x70 cm - and it makes for very nice poster. Sure from 10 inches it is not 10/10, but still quite good.
 
MartinP said:
OK, so I appreciate that younger photographers have never had the opportunity to print in a darkroom and don't want to start - so how about using a flatbed for proofing, and then a DSLR to photograph the chosen superior negative or transparency (of whatever size) ?? This would require a framework to keep the set-up square, some sort of carrier for the original which keeps it extremely flat plus a light source. That sounds very d.i.y.-able surely ?
Click to expand...

See this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=87939 at post #13. (I've mentioned it in threads like this one a couple of times before.) If you want my opinion, I think that's the future for many of us. Affordable film scanners will disappear eventually.
 
I don't get it? why is everyone so worried? Bottom line is their are good 35mm scanners like the nikons available NOW. Use them. Once they die THEN start to look for a alternative. The only reason to look for a alternative is if they are too pricey now.
 
For some historical reading google Dr. Rudolf Hell

In the early 1960s I was an operator on a 1958 Vario-Klischograph from HELL Gravure Systems GmbH (current company name). Dr. Rudolf Hell is best known as the inventor and founder of "HELL" which also made color-separation scanners. They also introducted in 1970 of the highly successful DC300, the first laser drum scanner.

The Vario-Klischograph was HUGE in size and weight (due to the moving engraving platform). All tube controlled, but what a machine...

Casey
 
Last edited:
I have been using a digital SLR (Leica DMR) and an enlarging lens. For the last 3 years.
I am thinking about trying a Hasselblad, with a digital back, and macro bellows. Has anyone tried to copy negatives with a medium format digital back?
Scanners were developed when the sensors were expensive. As sensors get better, it seems logical that a one shot copy using a flash should be just as good as most film scanners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom