A modern scanner for 35mm and 120 film

[Helge]

And then you have to ask yourself whether any of these images are even worth saving. And for whom. And why.

You strike me as kind of a benign soft troll, but I'll bite.
For history of course! Personal, local, national and global. Short term, long term and for the very long term.
All worthy causes, just plain fun and very gratifying.

 

[faberryman]

@faberryman Why? To be discovered after your death, of course!

You might have a better chance of being discovered if you made prints and left them in a storage unit. I'm not sure digital images stored on a hard drive at a server farm gives you the best chance for posthumous fame

 

[Moose22]

And then you have to ask yourself whether any of the images are even worth saving. And for whom. And why.

I don't ask those questions.

It's more enjoyable to pretend what I'm doing is important. I have a book full of prints I literally cannot get anyone to look at, like I stick it in front of their faces, turned to a favorite image, they'll look for a second then be off on some other tangent and not care to look at a second shot.

But... I still print, I still shove things in the book, and when I give a print to someone it's gallery matted as though anyone will give a crap if it still looks nice in 20 years. Because that's what I find fun to do.

You should read Old Man and the Sea sometime.

 

[MattKing]

You should read Old Man and the Sea sometime.

On a Kindle ?

 

[Moose22]

On a Kindle ?

Any way you like.

Some of my favorite books I reread after a decade or whatever. I'll buy them in paperback form, then either give them to someone who will appreciate the read, or leave it at a favorite place that has a book exchange. A shelf where you can leave a book or take a book.

But I'm weird that way. I like book shaped books.

To be silly here, you reminded me of a notion I had and I'll share. I usually don't carry a phone because I hate phones with a fiery passion and like to not be bothered (or tracked, or constantly advertised to) when I'm having a walk or a cup of coffee. But at one point I considered tucking a tablet in my camera bag because lots of people ask to see my photographs, but very few actually hit a website at a later date if I give them a URL. I have metrics, I know when I get zero extra page views the week after handing out the URLs.

So, when someone says "I'd love to see your photos" , pull out the ipad on a page of favorite images, let them click next a half dozen times. It HAS to be a better viewing experience than on their phone, and usually they don't even look on their phone.The reason I scan and upload to a website is so photos are more accessible to be viewed, but man I hate people seeing an image on a screen barely bigger than the negative it came from.

Then I realized I don't care. I spent the money buying a camera from Huss and some film.

Only a few people see the bulk of my work, but they're the folks who are actually interested, and those are the folks with whom I really want to share them.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

The planet is overheating and, despite "carrying capacity" misinformation, cannot sustain even the current population.

When capitalism gives 90+ percent of wealth to 10% of population and creates an illusion that you need newest iphone each year, this might seem so real. With better distribution of wealth and saner attitude towards expiry date - planet has enough resources. It's we who are lacking.


On scanning:
Sooo - if I have 400€, want my pics scanned and occasionally printed from these scans to max A3-A2, and am not pixel peeping failed scientist - what's my best current option out there in reality?
Because it's all fun and game's, charts and pixels in otherwise uninteresting photos, but most of us just want a tool for a job, no?

 

[brbo]

On scanning:
Sooo - if I have 400€, want my pics scanned and occasionally printed from these scans to max A3-A2, and am not pixel peeping failed scientist - what's my best current option out there in reality?
Because it's all fun and game's, charts and pixels in otherwise uninteresting photos, but most of us just want a tool for a job, no?

Sooo - you've read the entire thread and think that we've now suddenly came to a complete agreement on which tool is best for everyone?!

If I knew nothing about scanning and only read this thread I would come to a conclusion that for an undiscriminating user anything can work if only he/she invest some time to learn the tool.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I know little about scanning (have operated only 2, zero education on this, that's why I'm here), am reading this thread with a limited knowledge, experience, budget and a need for tool that does decent job.

All scanning threads quickly devolve in pile of goo, and nothing becomes clearer for the average user that wants just a decent scanner, not supercar. Everyone seems to force supercars on everyone, ignoring their needs - regardless of platform the discussion takes place. This is very telling on itself.

That's why I'm setting some filters in my previous comment: am not looking for the best, just decent - something that won't make your eyes bleed or do film massive injustice, and could be shared online without shaming myself. I guess OP asks the same.

When I'll need THE BEST or fine print to sell, I'll seek a pro lab with a pro printer, and there's a massive difference in use scenarios. Average Joe doesn't need a supercar, right?

 

[brbo]

Anything will work. Either a dedicated or flatbed scanner or camera scanning or minilab scanning... If you learn to use the tools that you have at hand most everything will work.

I can make my ancient flatbed pretty much match my Noritsu lab scanner:



Or RA-4 print:




Obviously, if I wanted a really big print or wanted the scan finished in 20sec from start to finish... flatbed will be a limitation. But my point is that even if you don't care about the best, it's good to set some priorities and pick the tools based on that. You might hate camera scanning as it is very involved from start to finish, you might hate the limited resolution of the flatbed, etc...

 

[albireo]

On scanning:
Sooo - if I have 400€, want my pics scanned and occasionally printed from these scans to max A3-A2, and am not pixel peeping failed scientist

I find this attitude puzzling. There are hundreds of extremely nerdy threads in the 'black and white-chemistry' section - thousands on opinions on dilutions, metaborate, hydroquinone yes/no, whether XTOL is marginally better 'replenished' rather than 1+1, 1+3, millions of conversations on effective EI, toes, shoulders, tons of pseudoscience and poorly understood physics insight grouped under the umbrella term of 'densitometry' - thousands of wannabe armchair physicists/chemists with only a fleeting interest in photography or composition. Yet, the minute someone starts looking a bit deeper into avenues for doing digital processing of negatives and options to doing it right, it's 'pixel peeping'.

Do you also jump in those threads and go something like "SOO, I want my pictures developed and printed correctly, and am not chemistry-peeping failed scientist"

Why do people demand simplicity and straightforward results from digital processing yet tolerate or appreciate complexity in the darkroom?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I find this attitude puzzling.

Maybe because you are misreading me and generalizing? I haven't demonstrated such an attitude and behavior, and to elaborate - simplicity in each and every field would hurt precisely nobody. Science communication is just about that - explaining mind boggling concepts to idiots in a manner we, the idiots, understand and can base our choices on this understanding.

My thinking is - If all there is to scanning are the skills of the operator, we should talk then what really matters - technique, not hardware. To create guides on how to operate each scanner best - shouldn't be too difficult in a World of limited pool of hardware out there.

No attitude, just seeking where the core issue lies and how to solve it with a limited budget, knowledge and hardware pool.

 

[PerTulip]

....

....
Sooo - if I have 400€, want my pics scanned and occasionally printed from these scans to max A3-A2, and am not pixel peeping failed scientist - what's my best current option out there in reality?....

A2-A3 from what? 135? 120?

 

[PerTulip]

....
All scanning threads quickly devolve in pile of goo, and nothing becomes clearer for the average user that wants just a decent scanner, not supercar.....?

Because we are extremists. :-D The Anti-Flatbed-Taliban vs. the DSLR-Scan-Sucks-Jehovas :-D

As with everything, you can take two approaches:
- I want 99% "quality". Getting from 90% to 99% requires a lot of effort. Not only in scanning, in everything.
- Pareto principle: get 80% of the results with 20% of the effort

First questions:
- What do you want to scan
- What for? (Print web,....)

 

[Les Sarile]

On scanning:
Sooo - if I have 400€, want my pics scanned and occasionally printed from these scans to max A3-A2, and am not pixel peeping failed scientist - what's my best current option out there in reality?
Because it's all fun and game's, charts and pixels in otherwise uninteresting photos, but most of us just want a tool for a job, no?

A2 or A3 size prints from 35mm film? True b&w, slides and/or color negatives? New only or you're not adverse to used?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You might have a better chance of being discovered if you made prints and left them in a storage unit. I'm not sure digital images stored on a hard drive at a server farm gives you the best chance for posthumous fame

Frank: That's why I suggest framing your best and giving them as gifts. Start gaining fame while you alive. Plus the thanks you'll get from the people you gave them to when you visit them will be appreciated by all while you're alive.

"What a great picture you gave me of Yosemite. The whole family loves it. I have it hanging in the den. And the picture you took of all of us is on the coffee table in our best frame. Come, let me show you."

What could be better than that when you visit your cousins?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't ask those questions.

It's more enjoyable to pretend what I'm doing is important. I have a book full of prints I literally cannot get anyone to look at, like I stick it in front of their faces, turned to a favorite image, they'll look for a second then be off on some other tangent and not care to look at a second shot.

But... I still print, I still shove things in the book, and when I give a print to someone it's gallery matted as though anyone will give a crap if it still looks nice in 20 years. Because that's what I find fun to do.

You should read Old Man and the Sea sometime.

I know how you feel. Whenever we get back from vacation, I spend weeks often months putting together a video slide show with music, credits, titles, annotations, etc. I show it on my 75" UHD TV. It takes my wife weeks before she agrees to sit down and watch it and then she tells me not to show it to guests when they visit. But I keep watching and enjoying it. I use to make DVD's of them and send it to my daughter to watch. Ego.

Here's a suggestion. Make up extra copies of the better picture books and give them as gifts when you visit friends and relatives as coffee table books. Better than bringing a box of Dunkin Donuts and healthier too. They just may look at and appreciate it.

 

[Helge]

Because we are extremists. :-D The Anti-Flatbed-Taliban vs. the DSLR-Scan-Sucks-Jehovas :-D

As with everything, you can take two approaches:
- I want 99% "quality". Getting from 90% to 99% requires a lot of effort. Not only in scanning, in everything.
- Pareto principle: get 80% of the results with 20% of the effort

First questions:
- What do you want to scan
- What for? (Print web,....)

If your main aim, as an amateur, with shooting film is putting it online, I'd seriously question whether you really should shoot film at all.
Notice I'm saying "main", as in there is nothing at all wrong with scanning of course and posting on Instagram an Flickr. And "amateur" because the conditions for a professional earning a living, is substantially different.
Therefore you really "need" more quality than what a V800 can give you. More than what most commercial scanners can give you in fact.

A V800 or OpticFilm/Plustek is not 80 percent of the way there. It's twenty or thirty at most, if you look at bare numbers. Anything can look good enough at a distance/on a small screen. Project, print and even put on a 4k television and you run into problems.

Also you gravely misrepresent/misunderstand the Pareto principle.
An apt application in this context would be that twenty percent (much less in the photography realm I'd say) sets the minimum standard of "good enough" to aim for by the rest.
It's in the family of other hard to prove, but very intuitively plausible natural distributions like Sturgeons law and Gresham's Law.
Who'd ever aim for and settle to be mediocre? Even if the photography is only for personal or interfamily enjoyment.

 

[warden]

Because we are extremists. :-D The Anti-Flatbed-Taliban vs. the DSLR-Scan-Sucks-Jehovas :-D

Don't forget the junkyard combers, nursing old scanners, antique computers and the finest floppy disk software.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I know little about scanning (have operated only 2, zero education on this, that's why I'm here), am reading this thread with a limited knowledge, experience, budget and a need for tool that does decent job.

All scanning threads quickly devolve in pile of goo, and nothing becomes clearer for the average user that wants just a decent scanner, not supercar. Everyone seems to force supercars on everyone, ignoring their needs - regardless of platform the discussion takes place. This is very telling on itself.

That's why I'm setting some filters in my previous comment: am not looking for the best, just decent - something that won't make your eyes bleed or do film massive injustice, and could be shared online without shaming myself. I guess OP asks the same.

When I'll need THE BEST or fine print to sell, I'll seek a pro lab with a pro printer, and there's a massive difference in use scenarios. Average Joe doesn't need a supercar, right?

I used an Epson V600 for ten years. I recently upgraded to an Epson V850 because I needed the larger scanning format because I bought a 4x5 large format camera. I scan using the software that came with the scanner - Epsonscan. I try to keep it simple. I rarely print and use it to present pictures here and store my shoots on Flickr for others to see. Check my Flickr page where you can see 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 scans in both color and BW. I think you'll find my work pretty acceptable. If I demand the best scan for a huge print, I'll send it out to a pro scanner.

Keep it simple.

 

[Auer]

I used an Epson V600 for ten years. I recently upgraded to an Epson V850 because I needed the larger scanning format because I bought a 4x5 large format camera. I scan using the software that came with the scanner - Epsonscan. I try to keep it simple. I rarely print and use it to present pictures here and store my shoots on Flickr for others to see. Check my Flickr page where you can see 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 scans in both color and BW. I think you'll find my work pretty acceptable. If I demand the best scan for a huge print, I'll send it out to a pro scanner.

Keep it simple.

Amen.

 

[Helge]

I used an Epson V600 for ten years. I recently upgraded to an Epson V850 because I needed the larger scanning format because I bought a 4x5 large format camera. I scan using the software that came with the scanner - Epsonscan. I try to keep it simple. I rarely print and use it to present pictures here and store my shoots on Flickr for others to see. Check my Flickr page where you can see 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 scans in both color and BW. I think you'll find my work pretty acceptable. If I demand the best scan for a huge print, I'll send it out to a pro scanner.

Keep it simple.

There is simple, simple. As in using a knife as a screwdriver, or walking instead of getting a bike.
And there is ingenious simple, where you get a lot for a little (though often with a lot of mental planning and experimentation). Bow and arrow is such a non obvious invention. The iron smelting oven is another. Aiming a DSLR up into an enlarger could be something like this to a lesser degree, using existing devices for something else, that was previously expensive and hard.

 

[PerTulip]

If your main aim, as an amateur, with shooting film is putting it online, I'd seriously question whether you really should shoot film at all.....

If somebody has fun setting up online-galleries "shot on film", why not? It's absurd to question the personal motives somebody has to do something as a hobby.

....Who'd ever aim for and settle to be mediocre? Even if the photography is only for personal or interfamily enjoyment.

In almost every hobby, I am mediocre. Neither on the cycle I will reach world-class times, playing an instrument I hit a wrong note, I can't surf the biggest waves and I am a passable skier. Photography is a hobby. I used to do it for money, but since I quit, I no longer have any desire to pursue every last bit of "perfection". Because I can't devote more than a few hours a week to it.

Personally, I think this elitist view of photography dissuades many people. Only top-notch gear, top-notch scanners, etc. seem to be valid for some. This weekend I shot a 4x5. And it was great! even if two corners are dark, because I shifted too much, so it's "mediocre".

 

[Ivo Stunga]

First questions:
- What do you want to scan
- What for? (Print web,....)

35mm slides, mostly BW, some color. For WEB, sometimes for a print. I't be cool to have a decent scanner that could do both, but it's not possible in this price range, this I understand. My understanding also is that in reality my old Plustek 7600i Ai is good enough for WEB, but lacking for decent prints.

Currently I'm shooting for projection and scanning/Flickr comes second. That said, I don't really want to underrepresent my slides online, so a better solution / technique could be in order.

 

[Helge]

If somebody has fun setting up online-galleries "shot on film", why not? It's absurd to question the personal motives somebody has to do something as a hobby.


In almost every hobby, I am mediocre. Neither on the cycle I will reach world-class times, playing an instrument I hit a wrong note, I can't surf the biggest waves and I am a passable skier. Photography is a hobby. I used to do it for money, but since I quit, I no longer have any desire to pursue every last bit of "perfection". Because I can't devote more than a few hours a week to it.

Personally, I think this elitist view of photography dissuades many people. Only top-notch gear, top-notch scanners, etc. seem to be valid for some. This weekend I shot a 4x5. And it was great! even if two corners are dark, because I shifted too much, so it's "mediocre".

"Elitist" is a term bandied around here a lot. My feel is that it's just a blanket term to cover over it's own mirror version. The reverse snop. The egalitarian facist obsessive. Which is interesting when you look at other congruent tendencies. It's just a cover for fear and conformity.

If it's "elitist" to personally want and implore others to do their best, find their voice and style and at least try to make a real difference, however small. Then by golly, I'm very happy to be elitist.

Either you have no idea what mediocre means or you are just trying to pick a fight.
To paraphrase Ruskin: I'd rather have shattered majesty over mean perfection.
Failing in trying is never mediocre. Committing the same small mistake again and again towards the greater fallacy is.

Even in a bog standard family snapshot you should try to do "something". Add some humor, use a different approach or viewpoint, say something inappropriate just before you shoot, get someone to hold the wireless flash etc.
If shooting as an amateur becomes bog standard routine, then what is the point really?
Always push yourself. Even at a funeral.

 

[PerTulip]

35mm slides, mostly BW, some color. .....

Yesterday I scanned some BW-135ies with my V850 and I was surprised (with some twaeking) how good a A4 print was.