A copy stand is not a replacement for a flatbed scanner.

Some of the replies on an online professional archivist forum on Reddit said that they don't care if Epson discontinued their flagship flatbed V600 and V850 scanners. Many said their Phase One camera or DSLR's and copy stands did better. A copy stand is not the same as a flatbed scanner when it comes to archival work.

A copy stand provides more harsh results when it comes to defects and silvering. It offers no options for weighted scans on warped material like stereo cards. This is why you see subpar digitization from most archives even with their $90,000 Phase One digitization setups.

If a vacuum frame is used, then you could possibly flatten out some of this material. I used vacuum frames extensively in the 1970s, but we used them on thin paper and sheet film, not on thick, warped mounting boards. Even so, vacuum frames are not mainstream or easy to acquire as they once were in the days of graphic arts and process cameras.

Within the archive I use camera / copy stand combos as well as various scanners of all sorts. They each have their purpose. But the bottom line is...a copy stand is not a replacement for a flatbed scanner; they produce different results.

When it comes to weighted scans, I found that an Epson V600 scanner starts to break with 22 pounds of weight put on the lid. The part that breaks is the film scanning component in the lid. I limit the weight I put on the lid to 18 pounds. You figure out the weight limits for your scanner. Don't go by what I tell you, weight your scanner lid at your own risk. And if you do weight the lid, you will need a thick hard foam backer under the lid to contact the original. The lid alone will not do a good job on heavily warped material.

No post processing was done on the copy stand vs flatbed scan photos.

Copy stand photo.

Flatbed scan of the same photo.

Copy stand photo.

Flatbed scan of the same photo.

An example of a flatbed scanner.

An example of a 3-D photo taken with a flatbed scanner.

Examples of flatbed scanned photos weighted and unweighted.

An example of a nuArc dual vacuum frame platemaker c.1974.


Photos from:

NSFW

SHOOTOUT…Flatbed Scanner vs. Sheetfed Scanner vs. Copy Stand Photography – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection – II

<><><><>

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

Everything depends on so many factors. The comparison isn't very sensible for one very simple reason: a scanner is an integrated system that outputs image data. A copy stand is just a mechanical fixture.

There's no reason to put the weight on the cover of the scanner. Put a mat on what you're scanning and then an appropriately-sized board to distribute the weight. And use a scanner that doesn't also scan film. If you don't want to wear out the film scanner, only use it for film.

When evaluating the scanning process, I think it is important to say what media you intend to scan, and for what purposes.

Several recent active threads on Photrio have been about the suitability of flatbed scanners for scanning film -- negatives and slide film of various sizes. The examples given in this thread seem to all be reflective media, which is a quite different process from scanning transparent film.

I think there are many flatbed scanners that do an excellent job when scanning medium size reflective material, but only a fair job if scanning 35mm negatives. For archivists, no doubt the ability to flatten slightly curled old photos is a significant advantage compared to setting up a copy stand with lights.

In the comparisons shown above, most of the issues with the "copy stand" versions are due to light reflections. Controlling reflections when using a copy stand is difficult. Polarized filters over both the lights and the lens can help quite a bit, and with a little more effort some of the results shown could be improved.

But if given the choice, I agree with the OP -- for copying moderatly sized reflective material, a flatbed scanner is easier to use, and likely to give better results.

However, if copying film negatives and slides, especially in the smaller formats, a digital camera mounted on a copy stand, with the right lens and light source, can be an excellent replacement for a flatbed scanner.

And I wonder about smaller reflective material such as a postage stamp. I suspect (but do not know), a good macro lens on a copy stand might show more detail than a flatbed scanner??

A flatbed scanner like the V600 also repairs creases and tears and removes dust and other dirt using ICE. It corrects color and sharpness automatically. Do film camera scanner programs do similar corrections?

My V750 clearly beats my new Plustek 8200 only when using AN or museum glass inserts in the film holder.

Saganich said:

My V750 clearly beats my new Plustek 8200 only when using AN or museum glass inserts in the film holder.

Click to expand...

An ANG holder and/or BetterScan holder is considered essential for the best results of the scanners. The supplied plastic holders are very inaccurate and are a major, pitiful afterthought by Epson. It is fortunate other alternatives exist and have been enthusiastically embraced over time to provide much more satisfactory results.

A good copy stand, a good digital camera, a good flat-field macro lens (add a polarizer for reflective art), a good light source for backlighting, and a proper setup for reflective art (polarizers over the lights) works well, especially for flat art larger than a standard flatbed scanner. I prefer using a copy stand for digitzing negatives as it is much faster.

The standard equipment for many years for slide copying has been the Bowens Illumitran, a copy stand on a light box/flash unit. A mirrorless camera on a copy stand isn't much different. But I think the OP is mistaking poor lighting technique with a copy stand as being equipment error and not operator error.