The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans

[RichC]

There is however no substitute for real optical sharpness. What is not in the scan will also not be in the print and the oversharpening to camouflage lack of that very often looks ugly on bigger sized prints (or screens).

That I can't argue with. I'm doing an MA photography degree, so I'm spoilt - several Hasselbald Imacon scanners plus Nikons to use. I was going to buy an Epson 750 until I compared it with the dedicated film scanners - which are massively better.

There's such a huge leap in resolution and dynamic range that I've decided that all flatbeds suck in comparison, and that it would make little difference replacing my Canon 8800F with an Epson 750. I use flatbeds only for rough proofs now.

The only worthwhile replacement is a dedicated film scanner like the Plustek 120, which I'm saving up for. The right tool for the right job... Wish I could afford an Imacon, but I can't (its software's horrible though!).

 

[oldowl]

a quick pict

 

[bigeye]

I don't see any difference.

 

[hanskerensky]

I don't see any difference.

You cannot blame ME for that 🙂

 

[kanzlr]

I just finished scanning a few rolls form a recent reenactment event. Mostly Portra 400, everything shot with a Leica R7, (50/2, 28/2.8, 80-200/4):

Flickr link to the full gallery with 60 photographs


Schlacht an der Drau von Bernhard Fuhry auf Flickr


Schlacht an der Drau von Bernhard Fuhry auf Flickr

 

[hanskerensky]

That I can't argue with. I'm doing an MA photography degree, so I'm spoilt - several Hasselbald Imacon scanners plus Nikons to use. I was going to buy an Epson 750 until I compared it with the dedicated film scanners - which are massively better.

There's such a huge leap in resolution and dynamic range that I've decided that all flatbeds suck in comparison, and that it would make little difference replacing my Canon 8800F with an Epson 750. I use flatbeds only for rough proofs now.

The only worthwhile replacement is a dedicated film scanner like the Plustek 120, which I'm saving up for. The right tool for the right job... Wish I could afford an Imacon, but I can't (its software's horrible though!).

I'm often wondering how much the optical resolution of a flatbedscanner would benefit by taking the glassplate away or cutting a big hole in it. This of course after the warranty has expired 🙂

Anybody has experience with that ?

 

[henri klein]

If you want the highest resolution and best detail rendition at lowest cost, the best options are
- optical printing with APO enlarging lenses

and printing is way more fun - and you have a print 🙂 to look at and enjoy for years to come.

 

[beezil]

I gotta ask...

how many of you folks are PRINTING your scans?

I'm having a very enjoyable time printing my 120 scans on my epson 7900.

i don't miss my wet darkroom one bit!

 

[kanzlr]

me 🙂

I do plan to do some darkroom work later this year, but over all it is much easier to get nice results with scanning and inkjet printing. Not that darkroom work isn't more rewarding, but it is so much quicker with a printer.

 

[kanzlr]

as this is the Plustek thread, I allow myself to cross post.

6x6 FP4+

The Plusteks resolution is more than sufficient I'd say.

 

[beezil]

as this is the Plustek thread, I allow myself to cross post.

6x6 FP4+

The Plusteks resolution is more than sufficient I'd say.

yep....that's exactly what i was hoping to see in my scanner....

FILM GRAIN!


If i can see grain in 6x7 tmax 100 and tech pan (shot at 25asa dev rodinal) that's enough scanner for me.

 

[clayne]

I find it funny that as more solid images have been posted the naysayers are pretty much nowhere to be found.

 

[RichC]

My university has just bought a Plustek 120. It's also got Imacons, Nikon 9000s and Epson 750s, so will be interesting to compare. As i said above, the Epson is awful - compared with the Imacon or even the Nikon, it's like shooting a Holga compared with a Leica! I expect the Plustek will be very close to the Nikon.

 

[louisb]

My university has just bought a Plustek 120. It's also got Imacons, Nikon 9000s and Epson 750s, so will be interesting to compare. As i said above, the Epson is awful - compared with the Imacon or even the Nikon, it's like shooting a Holga compared with a Leica! I expect the Plustek will be very close to the Nikon.

Rich, I don't want to start an argument but it is pretty dismissive to say the Epson is awful.

I've been scanning with the Epson 700 for over two years (since I made a serious return to film) - a small number of scans have been licensed by stock photo agencies and I have printed many - including the cover of my latest Blurb book to great effect. The Epson is a fine piece of kit - to paraphrase a well know saying "it is the scannerer that takes the scan not the scanner!"

I don't want to sound like a troll but so far I have not seen any results in this thread which would make me shell out nearly four times the price of an Epson 700 to own a Plustek. I honestly believe I could obtain at least up to A3+ a perfect print from my Epson 700 and if I wanted larger... ahem... I would use my Sigma DP2M as the tool not a print film (another argument in the making!).

But if I had access to a Plustek 120 for free obviously it would be wise to use it.

Just my two cents.

LouisB

PS I used to follow your writings back in the Epson RD days!

 

[clayne]

Louis, the Epson really is awful for anything but 4x5 or prints, seriously.

Scan some 135 or 120 format negs on a Coolscan or Plustek and you'll immediately realize just how crappy the Epson is at scanning negatives. At *absolute* best it's mediocre - but it is definitely not even close to sharply resolving anything but large format (and even then it isn't, because it just can't resolve anything close 4kdpi or even 2kdpi).

Disclaimer: I own a v700 and Coolscans. I have absolutely made direct comparisons.

 

[louisb]

Louis, the Epson really is awful for anything but 4x5 or prints, seriously.

Scan some 135 or 120 format negs on a Coolscan or Plustek and you'll immediately realize just how crappy the Epson is at scanning negatives. At *absolute* best it's mediocre - but it is definitely not even close to sharply resolving anything but large format (and even then it isn't, because it just can't resolve anything close 4kdpi or even 2kdpi).

Disclaimer: I own a v700 and Coolscans. I have absolutely made direct comparisons.

As I say, that is not my experience but I have not scanned 35mm film and have no interest in doing so. Maybe I just got a good Epson 700?

I really did want to believe the Plustek was the scanner for me but so far with the all the problems reported here and the results I have seen posted it is too big a financial risk when I am getting good results from the Epson.

If someone (in the UK would be convenient) wants to volunteer to scan some test frames of my negs on a Plustek 120 and send them back to me I am more than willing to stand corrected.

LouisB

 

[clayne]

Send me some negs you're familiar with and I'll gladly scan them for you on a Nikon LS-9000 with ANR glass. If you're getting acceptable results with the v700, that's great - but it's holding back the potential of your film for no other reason than it's in a different league from dedicated film scanners.

 

[louisb]

Send me some negs you're familiar with and I'll gladly scan them for you on a Nikon LS-9000 with ANR glass. If you're getting acceptable results with the v700, that's great - but it's holding back the potential of your film for no other reason than it's in a different league from dedicated film scanners.

Thanks for the offer!

We are comparing apples with oranges here. I have no doubt the LS-9000 is streets ahead of the Epson 700 - I'm not convinced the Plustek 120 is.

And I stand by what I stated. I have 18x12 crops printed from 6x6 frames which are pin sharp and full of detail. I have excellent 12x12s which I would probably be able to double to 24x24 and still retain marvellous detail. All scanned from my V700.

If I wanted 5foot by 4foot exhibition prints (which I would love but honestly have no need for) I would go 5x4 as you suggest and then the Plustek would be moot.

What I am saying is that an investment of time in scanning and post-processing technique makes the V700 a very good 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 scanner in my experience.

LouisB

 

[bwcolor]

What I am saying is that an investment of time in scanning and post-processing technique makes the V700 a very good 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 scanner in my experience.

LouisB

I have a V-750 Pro, Nikon 9000ED and the single feed Plustek. I purchased the V-750 to keep the wear and tear on the 9000 to a minimum. When I'm scanning to 13"x18" I use the 9000ED. When I have a good set of 35mm, I use the Nikon. For 645 and 6x7, I regularly use the Epson with an adjustable holder and ANR glass.

 

[kanzlr]

The Plustek 120 replaced my Coolscan 4000 and Epson 4490.

For 35mm film, it is at least on par with the Coolscan, extracts actually more detail I'd say, and does not emphasize grain as much (which benefits colour negatives a lot, in my opinion).

In 120 it is no contest really, but the Epson scans with ANR glass where decent and more than enough for my usual print sizes. Thing is: why shoot 120 in the first place, if you only get a 8mp scan out of it (if scanning is what you plan to do with your negatives).