35mm black and white scanner recommendations

mporter012

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
383
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado
Format
Analog
Hello!

Due to the fortune one must invest in darkroom processes, I have decided for the time being to continue to shoot film, but scan and then edit and print digitally. So I am looking for a scanner. I am looking to make high quality prints, so I want something of considerable quality. I have read and heard that the plustek scanners are a great bang for the buck. The reviews on them are overwhelmingly positive.

I use a Nikon's and mainly shoot black and white. I would like a scanner than can scan both 35mm and 120mm.

Can someone make some recommendations?

Thanks!
 

pschwart

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
1,143
Location
San Francisco, CA
Format
Multi Format
Not to discourage you, but I think you will find that the hardware and software required for high quality scanning and printing (scanner, printer, quality monitor, monitor calibration, image editing software, ...) will far exceed the cost of outfitting a modest darkroom, especially considering that a lot of darkroom stuff can be found used for pennies on the dollar. If you are willing to print not larger than about 11x14 you might be able to use an inexpensive flatbed scanner instead of a dedicated film scanner, and there are other compromises you can make to contain costs. Digital is great, but it's not really the value alternative.

 
OP
OP

mporter012

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
383
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado
Format
Analog
Well it's also an issue of a dedicated space, finding the chemicals, ect. If I already have software, (lightroom) - all I need is a scanner correct?
 

mfphotography

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Messages
4
Format
Medium Format
If you want one scanner to do both 35mm and 120, you're looking at either a Coolscan 8000 or 9000 ($$$$$), a Minolta Scan Multi ($$$$, and may not be reparable if it breaks down), or the new Plustek ($$$, some teething problems with focus). Any way you slice it, it's going to cost you.

My advice would be to get a decent flatbed for 120 format (I personally use the Canon 9000F, but also consider the Epson V600 or V700 if you don't mind paying a bit more), and then get a dedicated 35mm scanner like a Plustek 8100 (or 8200 if you need infrared). This is my exact setup. I make simple low-res scan of my 35mm film on the 9000F (for proofing and web use), and then do the final high-rez scans of the keeper images on the Plustek. For 120, the 9000F is enough because I don't need massive enlargements. In the rare event that I want a huge print from a 120 negative, I send the frame out for a drum scan.

For scans, Lightroom is a decent way to manage the images, but Photoshop is greatly preferred for doing the actual image editing (preferably using a linear TIFF from VueScan, if you can).
 

pschwart

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
1,143
Location
San Francisco, CA
Format
Multi Format
mporter012 said:
Well it's also an issue of a dedicated space, finding the chemicals, ect. If I already have software, (lightroom) - all I need is a scanner correct?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think Lightroom provides all the functionality you want. And add this up just for starters:

- scanner
- 3rd-party film holders (will need for flatbed scanner)
- editing software (there are some inexpensive alternatives to Photoshop, but then you will be on your own)
- quality pigment photo printer (an all-in-one is not going to cut it). Don't forget the ink will cost you far more
than the printer, and probably far more than the cost of darkroom supplies for the same time period.
- monitor appropriate for image editing
- monitor calibration hardware and software

Go ahead and scan and print, but don't do it to save $$$.
 

artobest

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
165
Location
South Wales
Format
Medium Format
Philip is right, scanning/digital printing is not that cheap, especially taking into account printing consumables. However, you can save money (in the long run) and get an unbeatable black-and-white system with a dedicated all-black inkset such as those from Jon Cone/Piezography, and a small, cheapish Epson. You will need a good monitor however, especially for neutral b&w (difficult to achieve otherwise).

My guess is people recommend Photoshop for scans because scans often require fairly radical adjustments (a flat initial scan is the desired starting point). However, I expect most of what you will need to achieve is possible in Lightroom, if that is your preferred software. In some respects, Lightroom is better than PS - especially in capture sharpening and noise reduction, unless you put down money for additional PS plug-ins.
 

pschwart

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
1,143
Location
San Francisco, CA
Format
Multi Format
Lightroom's pedigree is raw conversion and image management. It's come a long way, but Photoshop is still a far more capable image editor. You can always start with LR and see if it meets your needs.
Once you use Photoshop layers, you will never want to work another way.
 

L Gebhardt

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,363
Location
NH
Format
Large Format
mporter012 said:
Why is Photoshop better for scans? I have heard this before?
Click to expand...

I generally like to scan as a positive and invert in software. You can do that in Lightroom with curves, but it's awkward. Then if you need another set of curves you can't easily do that (for scans I frequently need to adjust the individual channels with curves to get everything balanced properly). I also find being able to do spotting in layers is useful. Spotting in Lightroom works, but once you get lots of spots corrected it gets a bit slower. Just being able to easily work with layers and masks is reason enough for me to use Photoshop.

By all means try Lightroom, but be aware you may feel limited. It will also depend on how good your scanning software is. But in my experience most of the software out there really sucks, and doing it yourself is the best option for color.
 

rbultman

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
411
Location
Louisville,
Format
Multi Format
Dedicated film scanners for 35mm are relatively cheap ($300) and will give very good quality. Dedicated film scanners that can do 120/220 film are significantly more, with a new PlusTek Opticfilm 120 costing $2000. I have a Nikon LS8000 scanner that I use to scan 120/220 and 35mm film. I use Vuescan to do the scanning and Lightroom for editing. Check my photostream on flickr for examples using this system. (Flickr: Rob Bultman's Photostream) I am no expert and am self-taught on all of the equipment and software. I am also not a great photographer. Hopefully you will get some idea of what can be accomplished with this workflow. There is a mix of images from different film cameras as well as from my Canon Xsi. Almost all of the work in B&W is from film and scanned with this workflow. Anything from the last 3 months that is B&W is from this workflow.

I have also used Bibble/AfterShot but it could not handle 6X9cm scans at 4000DPI due to file size limitations. Bibble is much faster (the program itself is much faster) than Lightroom but I find the editing controls in Lightroom to better match how I do photography. You absolutely can do good stuff without Photoshop.

I will agree with the other posters that a traditional darkroom can be much cheaper than a digital darkroom given the amount of used equipment on the market. I use a digital darkroom because I perceive that a traditional darkroom is more difficult to use. I say this never having produced an optical print in a traditional darkroom. I also perceive that it is possible to make much better prints, the kind that I associate with art, in the traditional darkroom. I recently started developing my own B&W film. I believe that I will end up outfitting a traditional darkroom and producing traditional wet prints. That is not where I am right now in my photography and am more comfortable in the digital darkroom.

Best of luck to you.

-Rob
 

OzJohn

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
302
Format
35mm
Unless you plan to shoot one of the chromogenic B&W films (Ilford XP2 or Kodak B&W 400) that are developed as colour negs, the real pain in the butt you'll run into with scanning is that the dust removal software that's in most scanners (eg digital ICE) does not work with conventional B&W negs.

Like others who have commented, I reckon you could set up a basic B&W darkroom these days for almost no money apart from paper and chemicals - enlargers etc are available sometimes for free because people just want to get rid of them.

Black and white printing is one of those areas where the product produced in the traditional way is quite different to the digital equivalent - not better just different. Beautiful prints can be produced both ways and my advice would be to start simple with paper and chemicals. As you grow your digital resources then try the other way. IMO it is much harder and certainly more expensive to make a great B&W print digitally than in the darkroom. Good luck. OzJohn
 

pschwart

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
1,143
Location
San Francisco, CA
Format
Multi Format

I am not at all interested in starting a wet darkroom vs digital discussion, but I am going to take issue with both these points. I have no bone to pick as I printed color and b&w professionally in a traditional darkroom for many years, and have been scanning, image editing, and digitally printing for a long time, too. The basic wet darkroom workflow for b&w is incredibly simple and can be taught in a day; making a digital print starting with scanning is a LOT more involved, and can be especially so for high-quality b&w. Without discussing perceived value, I will say that a skilled digital practitioner can often surpass what most can achieve in the wet darkroom.
 

rbultman

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
411
Location
Louisville,
Format
Multi Format

I can't disagree.
 

rbultman

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
411
Location
Louisville,
Format
Multi Format
pschwart said:
... The basic wet darkroom workflow for b&w is incredibly simple and can be taught in a day ... I will say that a skilled digital practitioner can often surpass what most can achieve in the wet darkroom.
Click to expand...

Sorry for this being off-topic from the OP, but you got me thinking. I did a little reading on the Piezography stuff and the making of digital prints. Jon Cone claims as good or better then wet prints for Piezography. Is it easier to set up a darkroom or a printer with Piezo inks? Is it easier to get good prints from a wet darkroom or a digital workflow including a printer? Assume a B&W film negative as the source, not an image for a digital camera.

I ask these questions in the context of someone that does photography as a hobby, not a professional. Adherents to a strictly analog workflow claim that the silver print is the best while adherents to Piezography claim that it provides the best prints. As I have seen elsewhere in various forums, you have to compare two prints printed in each process to evaluate. (This may come down to who is the better printer not which is the better process but I get the idea.) I'm not really try to start a "which is the best" but rather ask "which is easier to get good results." You (Philip) have done both so you may be in the best position to answer this question. I'm looking to maximize the limited time that I have for this hobby.

Thanks, and sorry for hijacking the thread.

-Rob
 

pschwart

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
1,143
Location
San Francisco, CA
Format
Multi Format
I have already weighed in on this:
The basic wet darkroom workflow for b&w is incredibly simple and can be taught in a day; making a digital print starting with scanning is a LOT more involved, and can be especially so for high-quality b&w.
Starting from scratch, I think there is a larger learning curve to the digital workflow. This will be reduced to the extent that you have digital skills you can leverage -- using a computer, scanning, image editing, and even printing are all non-trivial. Piezography is good stuff but can actually add complexity to your workflow.
Example: I just tested Piezography for the Epson 1400. The Cone profile needed significant tweaking in the shadows and highlights to achieve linearity (the inexpensive desktop printers probably show more variation unit to unit) so I had to embed Photoshop curves in the tiffs that were printed by QTR.
Digital and hybrid workflows are tremendously flexibility and capable, so I am not suggesting you avoid this route, but don't expect it to be easier. Once you have mastered basic skills, some things will be easier to achieve digitally than in the wet darkroom without very advanced printing skills. Unsharp masking is a simple example.
Here's a thought: take a couple of workshops to get introduced to both darkroom and digital printing so you can better decide what appeals to you. A lot of folks still practice both, so that's an option, too.
 

rbultman

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
411
Location
Louisville,
Format
Multi Format
pschwart said:
Here's a thought: take a couple of workshops to get introduced to both darkroom and digital printing so you can better decide what appeals to you. A lot of folks still practice both, so that's an option, too.
Click to expand...

Philip, thanks for adding the detail and the great suggestion.

Regards,
Rob
 

pschwart

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
1,143
Location
San Francisco, CA
Format
Multi Format
Another suggestion: seek out examples of silver and digital prints -- preferably that can be handled, not behind glass -- to get an idea of the print qualities. Maybe you will have a preference. Or maybe you won't be able to tell the difference:devil:
Making a print is pretty easy; making a great print is hard work no matter what process you use.
 

OzJohn

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
302
Format
35mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…