The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans

bigeye said:
Blah, blah, blah.


Fabio, your scans look great.

.
Click to expand...


LOL


Thank you...

I am also scanning the negative comments, and fishing for constructive advice, and started to change a few things, for one, I no longer use sharpening at the scanner level. (silverfast)

I believed it was a good idea to introduce some capture sharpening, but it seems to me it is introducing some artifacts, that can be seen by the experts. ( Along with no longer using iSRD)

So rather than complain or argue, I am just absorbing the good info.

Thanks



Fabio
 
I think we should try and keep it constructive.

Let's get one thing straight: no-one else is ever going to make a dedicated 120 film scanner again. Ever.
I'm sad to say it, but it's the truth. So let's be constructive about this Plustek scanner, and see how we can make the most of it.
 
dcsang said:
I'm curious - how big do you guys intend on printing (if at all) from the scans that this scanner creates?

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

About five years ago, i did a total gut-rehab on my 110 year old house. Doing this project meant that i had to completely dismantle my wet darkroom that i had spent many, many years building. I had stopped printing a few years before the rehab, which took a few years on its own, and once I had gotten around to it again, I had a choice to make: rebuild the wet darkroom, or not. I also wanted to assume creative process and output of all my color work, which i had been out-sourcing to a lab which completely takes the fun, money and control out of it.

Here I am, so you know what the decision was! I bought this scanner to replace the wet darkroom process, and bring to life literally hundreds of rolls of 120 film (6x6 and 6x7)that haven't even made it to a contact sheet!

I have new mac, lightroom 4 and an epson 7900....the missing link was/is the scanner.

In answer to your question, my intention on print size, was to make full use of the capacity and capabilities of my 7900 where appropriate, so perhaps as large as 24x28 full 6x7 neg.

I believe my weakest link is probably still the scanner and not the neg.

I always shot with slow film, 25, 50 and 100 iso, critical focus, tripod, f-22/f-32, etc....

I am going to try to learn from you guys who've been scanning a while, who understand all the tricks and best practices to make sure my scanning process is as strong as it can be for my desired output.
 
mani said:
I think we should try and keep it constructive.

Let's get one thing straight: no-one else is ever going to make a dedicated 120 film scanner again. Ever.
I'm sad to say it, but it's the truth. So let's be constructive about this Plustek scanner, and see how we can make the most of it.
Click to expand...

thanks. I'm new here, so last thing I'm interested in doing is asserting "my way"

but.....I was hoping this thread would serve the purpose of reviewing ACTUAL SCANS and seeing what the rest of us could learn from the guys who OWN the plustek 120.

We already have a thread that's become a place to deposit unfounded opinions, conjecture and assumptions, and it's not even interesting reading.

That's all I'll say, as I owe my own thread a scan of my own.
 
beezil said:
thanks. I'm new here, so last thing I'm interested in doing is asserting "my way"

but.....I was hoping this thread would serve the purpose of reviewing ACTUAL SCANS and seeing what the rest of us could learn from the guys who OWN the plustek 120.

We already have a thread that's become a place to deposit unfounded opinions, conjecture and assumptions, and it's not even interesting reading.

That's all I'll say, as I owe my own thread a scan of my own.
Click to expand...

As long as we get back on track, we'll be fine. I actually I have taken a few points from all the negative comments, some actually very constructive.

I am re scanning this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/josies/8436825072/


I have since washed the negative, dried it, not using USM or iSRD during scanning, I am scanning this as 5300 and 10600, with and without ME, and one 10600 ME 48 Bit.

But so far, I think anything above 5300 is overkill. just my opinion.

I am working tonight, so maybe tomorrow ,or Friday I will post crops , links etc.

This was 1994, Canon EOS, tripod, consumer zoom lens, timer, no mirror lock up, and Kodak Royal 25


Anything else I just don't remember,,, Ah, it could have used anywhere from 1/2 a stop to a stop more exposure...


Thanks
 
dcsang said:
As much as I appreciate "Mark from Plustek here" I have no real proof that "Mark" is his real name nor that he is actually employed by "Plustek" etc
Click to expand...

Are you kidding, or what?!?!?

Mark Druziak IS the Marketing Director of Plustek, U.S.A.!

Official Plustek website:
http://plustek.com/usa/news/press-releases/17661.html

"said Mark Druziak, Plustek’s director of marketing and business development"

He's one of the few guys who actually, officially, KNOWS about this product.

Fernando
 
I would be very interested in comments on the internals.

for example has the unit been made with high quality parts ?

are the critical gears made of a material which will hold up ?

is there proper cooling ?

were the electrical components picked that will hold up or were corners cut to save a dime here and there ?

in other worlds if i lay out 2 grand and do a moderate (not professional) amount of scanning will this unit hold up for 1/ 3/5/10 years ?
 
fventura said:
But so far, I think anything above 5300 is overkill. just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes, the point about scanning at 10600 is not trying to capture whatever image details could not be resolved at 5300 (there aren't many, usually), but to avoid those jaggies/faint vertical lines which are visible at 5300, and seem not to be present at 10600 (altough at 10600 there's some pixelation, which however shoud go away by resampling back at printing resolution).

This is, by the way, the kind of constructive criticism we are seeking: trying to get the best from the scanner, while pointing out its shortcomings (hoping Plustek may improve it). ;)

Fernando
 
XFer said:
Are you kidding, or what?!?!?

Mark Druziak IS the Marketing Director of Plustek, U.S.A.!

Official Plustek website:
http://plustek.com/usa/news/press-releases/17661.html

"said Mark Druziak, Plustek’s director of marketing and business development"

He's one of the few guys who actually, officially, KNOWS about this product.

Fernando
Click to expand...

I am not kidding.

Do you know Mark Druziak personally?
Have you met him in person?
Have you met the person who has posted here under that name?
Have you verified that this person is the same Mark Druziak and that he is speaking on behalf of the company?

I am merely pointing out that just because a person claims to be someone online we must take that claim with a grain of salt. As I said, even IF it is Mark and even IF he makes these claims, has the company itself made those same claims? I cannot locate them on the site and nor do I know if that is, or is not (please note that I made that comment in my original post as well), Mark Druziak who has posted those comments here.

So please, for all the mud slinging that seems to be going on - I ask that you look at what I have said objectively and read it again without calling into question my motives, or, perhaps, my intelligence.

Thank you,
Dave
 
XFer said:
Yes, the point about scanning at 10600 is not trying to capture whatever image details could not be resolved at 5300 (there aren't many, usually), but to avoid those jaggies/faint vertical lines which are visible at 5300, and seem not to be present at 10600 (altough at 10600 there's some pixelation, which however shoud go away by resampling back at printing resolution).

This is, by the way, the kind of constructive criticism we are seeking: trying to get the best from the scanner, while pointing out its shortcomings (hoping Plustek may improve it). ;)

Fernando
Click to expand...


Fernado,

I am listening.... I just want to get the most from it, and I "think"I made some improvements..

Anyway, I washed this negative:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/josies/8436825072/


Then re scanned, at 10600, no isrd, no usm, no sharpening in Lightroom, export from LR to an image of 8000x5366 @300dpi,
open in PS, apply some smart sharpen, save as a jpeg level 9.

I think the original is now visible in my flickr account.


This is an almost 20 year old neg, I used a consumer zoom lens, no mirror lock up, just an average tripod, and a self timer. Kodak Royal 25


Lrger version, no isrd:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/josies/8450609321/

I don't know if the Nikon does better, its max resoluyion is 3900ish, this looks pretty much like sucking the grain out of 35mm



Well, gotta go to work!

Fabio
 
fventura said:
I don't know if the Nikon does better, its max resoluyion is 3900ish, this looks pretty much like sucking the grain out of 35mm

Fabio
Click to expand...

I don't speak portuguese, but i'm pretty sure the red billboard in the bottom right says 'COMPETENCIA' at the top.. The fact that that is readable strikes me as fairly impressive.
 
dcsang said:
I am not kidding.

Do you know Mark Druziak personally?
Click to expand...

He replies to email sent at Mark Druziak at Plustek, and for sure he's the same guy writing here.
So don't be absurd. He IS Mark Druziak, Marketing Director of Plustek, and knows his stuff very well.

Fernando
 
XFer said:
He replies to email sent at Mark Druziak at Plustek, and for sure he's the same guy writing here.
So don't be absurd. He IS Mark Druziak, Marketing Director of Plustek, and knows his stuff very well.

Fernando
Click to expand...


This is just ridiculous. I spoke with him on the phone yesterday and exchanged emails with him.

I see 'denying the obvious' (a typical American disease) has infected Canada.
 
Hi Fabio,

fventura said:
Then re scanned, at 10600, no isrd, no usm, no sharpening in Lightroom, export from LR to an image of 8000x5366 @300dpi,
open in PS, apply some smart sharpen, save as a jpeg level 9.
Click to expand...

Thanks, you're helping us a lot!

I can see the jaggies even in this sample, so my theory about scanning at 10600 and downsampling doesn't work. :(

plustek120cropjaggies.jpg



Now, I'm not try to bash the scanner. I'm just trying to understand if it's worth Eur 2000, for me.

Every scanner has its issues, including some really high end stuff.
It's just that, Eur 2000 are quite some money, and we are in 2013, and the scanner was a work-in-progress since 2011 so I was expecting a bit more.
But it looks like a capable tool.

I don't know if the Nikon does better, its max resoluyion is 3900ish, this looks pretty much like sucking the grain out of 35mm
Click to expand...
The resolution is just part of the story.
The Nikon 9000 has very high micro contrast, and no jaggies (or other artifacts) to speak of.
It proved itself to be a reliable performer, built to last.
I own an 8000 and can use a 9000 from time to time, and from what I'm seeing, I'm not sure I would swap my 8000 for a Plustek 120; for sure I would not swap a 9000.
But there's room for improvement. Firmware updates may resolve jaggies.
And as Mani said, it's pointless to hope for better stuff, since nobody is producing prosumer film scanners anymore.

Thanks a lot for your contribution!

Fernando

PS: 4000 ppi is not enough to "extract grain". Not even the Imacon at 8000 can, not even my ScanMate at 11000. You would need 25'000 for that. And, sometimes my Minolta 5400 (5400 real ppi) leaves some details uncaptured. But only on the very best shots, so that's not much of an issue.
 
:D

I'd rather look at the internals of the Plustek 120 (gears material, quality of assembly, ...). I hope it's well built.
 
schooled said:
I don't speak portuguese, but i'm pretty sure the red billboard in the bottom right says 'COMPETENCIA' at the top.. The fact that that is readable strikes me as fairly impressive.
Click to expand...


Yep, that's exactly what it says, I am pretty impressed too.


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