Graham Line
Well-known
Same here. Do a maximum resolution scan with the Minolta software, keeping a close eye on the black and white points, and do the rest of the work needed in Elements. Most of the pictures in my portfolios went this route.
vieri
Leica Ambassador
I used to have a Coolscan 5000, but the increase in MF film work kinda forced me (in a good way of course) to buy the 9000, which is what I currently use. Both are great for the price, and I would recommend either equally - it all depends on wether you shoot a lot of MF or not 
dfoo
Well-known
I currently use a v700. Although the results for C-41 are acceptable, I'm pretty unhappy with the results for real black and white film (which I shoot 95% of the time)... You can see a few details on this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68421
KenD
Film Shooter
Recently updated from a HP S20 to a Coolscan 5000. I am very pleased with the enhanced resolution and speed of the Coolscan, although I am not all that impressed with the Nikon software. I plan to try VueScan.
KenD
KenD
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I've been using the 5000ED with Vuescan and Lightroom 2 for about a month. It is fantastic, both with B&W and color. Vuescan demands some experimentation, but once you've made your presets, you're golden. I have hacked the stock feeder to accept whole rolls of film...I just hit scan, leave the room, and come back an hour later to a folder full of TIFs. Awesome.
lewis44
Well-known
My 2 cents.
I've used both the Nikon LS-5000 and the Minolta 5400 and at one point did a side by side comparison and found the 5400 to have a slight edge in image quality, the LS-5000 was much better for speed and batch processing.
Both are excellent, so you need to choose what your preference is.
If you are doing a lot of film scanning, go with the Nikon. A roll or two, now and then, the Minolta would be my choice.
I've used both the Nikon LS-5000 and the Minolta 5400 and at one point did a side by side comparison and found the 5400 to have a slight edge in image quality, the LS-5000 was much better for speed and batch processing.
Both are excellent, so you need to choose what your preference is.
If you are doing a lot of film scanning, go with the Nikon. A roll or two, now and then, the Minolta would be my choice.
amateriat
We're all light!
For the last four years, the Minolta DS 5400 (first version) hase been my mainstay. Simply wonderful.
- Barrett
- Barrett
morback
Martin N. Hinze
a cheapo plustek 7500AI
venchka
Veteran
Nope
Nope
Not really. The optical hardware limit is about 2,000 SPI. Anything above that is done with smoke and mirrors and software.
Does Betterscanning make holders with ANR glass for the V500? Or supply ANR glass inserts for the Epson holders? Worth checking out. EDIT TO ADD: Doug Fisher at Betterscanning makes holders and ANR glass for the V500.
To date, I have used my ancient HP scanner for 35mm. The scanner is limited to 35mm format. I'm one of those folks with too many cameras and too many formats. I have been going to friend's house to use his Epson 4990 to scan 6x7 and 4x5 originals. The 4990 works very well. All of that will be changing soon since I found an Epson 1680 for $150. I will be able to scan all of my originals myself. I am also going to add the Betterscanning holders.
Stay tuned for an update on the Epson 1680.
Nope
Not really. The optical hardware limit is about 2,000 SPI. Anything above that is done with smoke and mirrors and software.
Does Betterscanning make holders with ANR glass for the V500? Or supply ANR glass inserts for the Epson holders? Worth checking out. EDIT TO ADD: Doug Fisher at Betterscanning makes holders and ANR glass for the V500.
To date, I have used my ancient HP scanner for 35mm. The scanner is limited to 35mm format. I'm one of those folks with too many cameras and too many formats. I have been going to friend's house to use his Epson 4990 to scan 6x7 and 4x5 originals. The 4990 works very well. All of that will be changing soon since I found an Epson 1680 for $150. I will be able to scan all of my originals myself. I am also going to add the Betterscanning holders.
Stay tuned for an update on the Epson 1680.
Last edited:
FA Limited
missing in action
get it done at a lab? it might be a bit pricey but usually less so at dev time and saves a tonne of effort if you can find a good lab. scanning is hard work.
lewis44
Well-known
Morback,
How do you like this scanner?
I read a article in the Dec. 2008 Shutterbug by David Brooks and he said that he is now using this scanner. His previous scanners were Minolta and the last was the 5400II.
Hard to believe that the Plustek is a better scanner, but there must be something that made him switch.
He does a Digital question and answer piece each month and usually is pretty good.
I emailed him, but have not heard back yet.
morback
Martin N. Hinze
In short, I am satisfied.
I scan flat and do all of my processing in photoshop. Including cleaning, I don't use any of the scanner's presets. This scanner will scan every scratch and dust particle, and you will want to firebomb your local lab if you are not processing your own film.
The drawbacks are:
Grayscale scans lack depth.
Film holder could be much better, no way (so far) of scanning the negative borders (I'm thinking of cutting my holder)
Every defect on the negative will be visible. (I decided not to use any of the built-in dust removal technology, I prefer to do it by hand and have a sharper scan)
On the plus side:
Cheap
Responsive Customer Service
"Sharp" scans (almost scans the grain)
Small and light (almost portable?)
Fast
On the sharpness side, I've been using a little bit of unsharp mask in photoshop, but after viewing them on my flickr, I find that there is too much edge contrast. It might be the conversion from .psd files to .jpg.
If you do have a look on my flickr, all the negative without the edge are scanned by the Plustek. the few that show the border are scanned by drum scanner. And please excuse the mess, I'm in the process of organizing all of my pictures.
I'm certainly satisfied for web and small prints, I have not tried large prints with it yet.
Hope this helps.
I scan flat and do all of my processing in photoshop. Including cleaning, I don't use any of the scanner's presets. This scanner will scan every scratch and dust particle, and you will want to firebomb your local lab if you are not processing your own film.
The drawbacks are:
Grayscale scans lack depth.
Film holder could be much better, no way (so far) of scanning the negative borders (I'm thinking of cutting my holder)
Every defect on the negative will be visible. (I decided not to use any of the built-in dust removal technology, I prefer to do it by hand and have a sharper scan)
On the plus side:
Cheap
Responsive Customer Service
"Sharp" scans (almost scans the grain)
Small and light (almost portable?)
Fast
On the sharpness side, I've been using a little bit of unsharp mask in photoshop, but after viewing them on my flickr, I find that there is too much edge contrast. It might be the conversion from .psd files to .jpg.
If you do have a look on my flickr, all the negative without the edge are scanned by the Plustek. the few that show the border are scanned by drum scanner. And please excuse the mess, I'm in the process of organizing all of my pictures.
I'm certainly satisfied for web and small prints, I have not tried large prints with it yet.
Hope this helps.
dfoo
Well-known
Do you have any 100% non-sharpened 3000+ dpi or better available for comparison with other scanners?
T
tedwhite
Guest
Morback: I have the Plustek OpticFilm 7200. Don't know what the difference is between mine and yours, but your model number is higher so perhaps that translates into better. I've been using Silverfast and the black & white scans seem sort of OK but generally need a bit of post-processing in photoshop, not much, and I've dropped the unsharp mask tool use. I think it came with Vuescan. Perhaps I ought to try that also.
I've been using my flatbed Epson 4990 for scanning prints, especially 8X10's and it seems to work OK. Does a lousy job with 35mm negs but an adequate job with medium format negs.
For a cheapo scanner, the Plustek is not a bad deal at all, and it does make several passes over the negative before finishing.
I've been using my flatbed Epson 4990 for scanning prints, especially 8X10's and it seems to work OK. Does a lousy job with 35mm negs but an adequate job with medium format negs.
For a cheapo scanner, the Plustek is not a bad deal at all, and it does make several passes over the negative before finishing.
dfoo
Well-known
^ Ted, I repeat my question above
ewoq
Member
a cheap reflecta crystalscan 7200 @ 3600 dpi
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
HP Scanjet G4050, ...should've read the reviews before buying.
Slow, Slow, Slow.
Quality is not too bad though and it does offer TMA-frames for 35mm, slides, 120 film and 4x5" negatives.
Would love to buy a professional negative scanner...but lack of funds is a serious drawback.
Slow, Slow, Slow.
Quality is not too bad though and it does offer TMA-frames for 35mm, slides, 120 film and 4x5" negatives.
Would love to buy a professional negative scanner...but lack of funds is a serious drawback.
T
tedwhite
Guest
dfoo:
No, I don't. I only learned how to use the Plustek a couple of weeks ago. I can certainly do a non-sharpened scan, but I have no idea how to do 3000dpi. Usually I'm scanning at 300dpi. I'll fiddle around and see if I can figure out how to do 3000dpi.
No, I don't. I only learned how to use the Plustek a couple of weeks ago. I can certainly do a non-sharpened scan, but I have no idea how to do 3000dpi. Usually I'm scanning at 300dpi. I'll fiddle around and see if I can figure out how to do 3000dpi.
dfoo
Well-known
It would be great to see a full sized 100% image. Are you sure you are scanning at 300 DPI though? That would produce an extremely small scan for a 35 mm negative (about 413 x 295 pixels).
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
A cheap Plustek 7200 and a old Epson Perfection 3200 Photo.
Vuescan and Silverfast and Epson software sometimes.
I can live with that.. some day a coolscan 5000.. some day!
Note: I get better results with Plustek @7200 with one pass than on multiple passes. Mine just don't get the second our third pass at same location (very slightly but noticeable). Besides the difference on Software used has a big effect too.
Direct from them, defaults and no treatment whatsoever.
Vuescan and Silverfast and Epson software sometimes.
I can live with that.. some day a coolscan 5000.. some day!
Note: I get better results with Plustek @7200 with one pass than on multiple passes. Mine just don't get the second our third pass at same location (very slightly but noticeable). Besides the difference on Software used has a big effect too.
Direct from them, defaults and no treatment whatsoever.
