Beginning search for scanner.

[Patzer]

First off, this is my first post. Was very glad to find this site. Nice to find a forum where you do not get flamed for using film and digital tech.

I use both digital and film cameras.

I have a significant number of negatives, transparencies; in 35mm through 4x5, B&W and color. I am also still using 35mm (Velvia, Tri-x) and 120 (6x6, Velvia, Tri-x).
My primary current film use is 6x6 B&W. I print on 8.5x11 (A4) paper, pigment, normally around 360 ppi. With 6x6, I do an 8x8 inch print.
Use Lightroom, primarily.

I am just beginning to look for a scanner. I have read 2 detailed reviews of the Epson V700, and am "thinking" about that one, and holders from betterscanning.

I would be interested in any input on this, or other scanners that I might want to investigate.

Thank you

 

[donbga]

First off, this is my first post. Was very glad to find this site. Nice to find a forum where you do not get flamed for using film and digital tech.

I use both digital and film cameras.

I have a significant number of negatives, transparencies; in 35mm through 4x5, B&W and color. I am also still using 35mm (Velvia, Tri-x) and 120 (6x6, Velvia, Tri-x).
My primary current film use is 6x6 B&W. I print on 8.5x11 (A4) paper, pigment, normally around 360 ppi. With 6x6, I do an 8x8 inch print.
Use Lightroom, primarily.

I am just beginning to look for a scanner. I have read 2 detailed reviews of the Epson V700, and am "thinking" about that one, and holders from betterscanning.

I would be interested in any input on this, or other scanners that I might want to investigate.

Thank you

It all depends on what your expectations are and what you are willing to pay. IMO, Epson flatbeds are not good scanners for 35mm film and marginal for 120.

I think your best option is to consider a dedicated film scanner for 35 mm and 120 and use the v700, v750 or even the 4990 for sheet films.

Don

 

[doc4x5]

If you can afford it, and if you can find one, the Nikon 9000 is an excellent solution for 35mm and medium format. I agree that flatbeds are unsatisfactory for 35mm and arguably marginal for medium format. I use top notch MF cameras and would feel like I'm making unacceptable compromises scanning MF with a flatbed. That leaves out 4x5 for which the Epson V7xx or Microtek M1 would probably serve well. I use a Microtek 1800f, no longer made, and it makes quite decent scans of 4x5, and a Nikon 9000 for medium format. I no longer use 35mm film.

Good luck

 

[djacobox372]

You may hear a lot of naysayers about the Epson V700, but it's a very good 35mm scanner IF you have to calibrate the film holder height EXACTLY right.

For me this meant using layers of tape on the bottom of the film holder "feet" until the scans were perfectly sharp. Also, film that's thicker or more curled will need a slightly different height--luckily the scanner comes with two sets of film holder feet.

Once you've taken the time to dial in the height, and learn what height to scan your different brands of film, it is just as sharp as any dry mount dedicated film scanner I've seen.

I personally love the fact that I can scan 24 35mm negs with a single mouse click!

 

[nsouto]

After using an Epson flatbed 4990 (model prior to v7xx) for a year, I bit the bullet and got a 9000.

The results for 35mm and 6X6, 6X7 are so much better than anything I could do with the Epson there is simply no comparison. I had to get anti-newton glass for the carriers because any curl of the film seriously reduces the detail one can obtain from this scanner.

To the point where I now have coolscan V for 35mm, the 9000 for 120 only - gotta preserve it for the important stuff! - and the Epson is reserved for scans of prints, text and other larger stuff.

 

[Robert Budding]

The Nikon 9000 is an excellent scanner. My old Epson 4990 now sits unused, and unloved.

 

[tgphoto]

I think if you do a bit of research you will find you have two (maybe three) options: 1) flatbed, 2) dedicated film scanner, or 3) drum scanner

While a drum scanner is typically offers the best quality scans available, it does so at a price point that is out of most peoples' budgets.

Next in line is either a Nikon 9000 or Epson V750-M Pro. The Epson will allow you to scan larger formats while the 9000 is a dedicated film scanner. The Nikon scans are sharper but with proper sharpening technique the Epson can come very close.

If both the Nikon and Epson are out of your price range, you might try searching ebay or similar auction houses for a used Nikon 8000, the previous generation scanner in the same vein as the 9000.

If you only plan on scanning a small number of negs each year, you could save yourself the time and trouble and outsource the scanning to a place like West Coast Imaging, which has a drum scanner.

 

[lenny]

I think if you do a bit of research you will find you have two (maybe three) options: 1) flatbed, 2) dedicated film scanner, or 3) drum scanner

While a drum scanner is typically offers the best quality scans available, it does so at a price point that is out of most peoples' budgets.

This is a matter of opinion. If one is a serious photographer, they often have equipment that is more expensive thn drum scanners which can be had anywhere from about $1500 to 10K.

Given what they deliver, I think its worth it - that's my opinion.

Next in line is either a Nikon 9000 or Epson V750-M Pro. The Epson will allow you to scan larger formats while the 9000 is a dedicated film scanner. The Nikon scans are sharper but with proper sharpening technique the Epson can come very close.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. The Epson is not in the same category.

If you only plan on scanning a small number of negs each year, you could save yourself the time and trouble and outsource the scanning to a place like West Coast Imaging, which has a drum scanner.

You could also try a smaller company and more personal approach, like EigerStudios, which also has a better scanner than West Coast Imaging.

This is an unabashed plug, of course. There are many fine scanning studios. Look for one with an Aztek Premier, if you can....

Lenny
EigerStudios.com

 

[Ram]

The Epson V750 has an excellent Professional review for scanning medium format film - even when its test compared against very expensive dedicated film scanners ! < FACT >

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_1.htm

I shoot film on the Hassleblad V System and I also have an Epson V750 Pro scanner which I use with the SilverFast Ai software - the quality of my scanned negs (mega 900 MB files) almost billboard size, is outstanding.

(Alas the dedicated film scanner scans have a little more detail the shadow areas)

But hey lets not split hairs for the sake of US $1000 scanner Vs. US $30,000 scanner - as its difficult to see the difference for most applications !

Good Luck

 

[lenny]

The Epson V750 has an excellent Professional review for scanning medium format film - even when its test compared against very expensive dedicated film scanners ! < FACT >
I shoot film on the Hassleblad V System and I also have an Epson V750 Pro scanner which I use with the SilverFast Ai software - the quality of my scanned negs (mega 900 MB files) almost billboard size, is outstanding.
But hey lets not split hairs for the sake of US $1000 scanner Vs. US $30,000 scanner - as its difficult to see the difference for most applications !

Good Luck

For anyone that has ever compared a drum with a consumer flatbed, there is a huge difference. It is entirely untrue that it is "difficult to see the difference". While I have a very expensive scanner, as I am a service bureau, it can't compare to any drum scanner ever made - even ones costing $1500-10K these days. The Epson is a blurry scanner. Not even in the same class.

The people that write the reviews at photo-i don't know what they are talking about. They specifically don't look at higher end solutions, nor do any of the magazines. They don't think their readers are interested.

If you are happy, that's great. But if you think the quality of your negs are just as good as they could be, then its time for you to find someone who can give you a real scan from a real machine. Sorry to be so harsh, rushing out the door...

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[Ram]

For anyone that has ever compared a drum with a consumer flatbed, there is a huge difference. It is entirely untrue that it is "difficult to see the difference". While I have a very expensive scanner, as I am a service bureau, it can't compare to any drum scanner ever made - even ones costing $1500-10K these days. The Epson is a blurry scanner. Not even in the same class.

The people that write the reviews at photo-i don't know what they are talking about. They specifically don't look at higher end solutions, nor do any of the magazines. They don't think their readers are interested.

If you are happy, that's great. But if you think the quality of your negs are just as good as they could be, then its time for you to find someone who can give you a real scan from a real machine. Sorry to be so harsh, rushing out the door...

Lenny
EigerStudios

Hi Lenny -

Over the years I have had much of my commercial (Color Work) scanned by a variety of Agencies Repro Houses on drum scanners etc etc ... and placed on billboards too - the images have been very sharp.


For my black & white art photography prints - images scanned at 900 Mb with my Epson V750 Pro with the silverfast Ai software are perfect for printing onto A2 Fine Art paper. Also, I dont have to get my films or images handled or digitally stored by by third parties or covered in / or subject to the alcohol type based scanning solutions.

I have also read that even the Hassleblad scanners are of such high quality that they have left a few Repro Studios feeling sore too !

Regards

 

[lenny]

Hi Lenny -
For my black & white art photography prints - images scanned at 900 Mb with my Epson V750 Pro with the silverfast Ai software are perfect for printing onto A2 Fine Art paper.

Are you using b&w inks? I would also say that the number of megabytes isn't a factor, it's the number of pixels, and the optical resolution. With the 750, that's around 1500-2000 vs 4000-8000 on the drums.

If you're happy, thats good.

Also, I dont have to get my films or images handled or digitally stored by by third parties or covered in / or subject to the alcohol type based scanning solutions.

This is not a concern for me, I have put tons of film in these solutions with not a single ill effect. However, I will add that IMO, it is prefereable to work with someone who does scanning for themselves and others, who has reached some expertise on the machine rather than a lab or repro house. They often do quite substandard scans. Depends on if they have some kid running the scanner, and just who they are, etc.

I have also read that even the Hassleblad scanners are of such high quality that they have left a few Repro Studios feeling sore too !

I couldn't agree with this, the Imacon's are CCD scanners, after all. They can't compare, either.

Lenny
eigerstudios.com

 

[Ram]

Are you using b&w inks? I would also say that the number of megabytes isn't a factor, it's the number of pixels, and the optical resolution. With the 750, that's around 1500-2000 vs 4000-8000 on the drums.

If you're happy, thats good.



This is not a concern for me, I have put tons of film in these solutions with not a single ill effect. However, I will add that IMO, it is prefereable to work with someone who does scanning for themselves and others, who has reached some expertise on the machine rather than a lab or repro house. They often do quite substandard scans. Depends on if they have some kid running the scanner, and just who they are, etc.



I couldn't agree with this, the Imacon's are CCD scanners, after all. They can't compare, either.

Lenny
eigerstudios.com

Hi Lenny,

Thanks for your much appreciated advice & expertise on digitization procedures.

I guess that my worries are founded on the plain fact that I am too familiar with some of the commercial Repro Houses in the Middle East Region :eek:
and not a dedicated studio

I guess if your scans of ppi of 8,000 of 10X8 sheets of film must make everything else look totally and completely inferior by comparison ! WOW !
I bet the quality is amazing

I am happy with the scans that I have taught myself to do-to-date, as my personal work is street photography,which I shoot on the classic V system with Ilford XP2 (Oh the convenience of C41 processing).

I quite like the look of the scanned images so far .... I only take out any specs of dust from scanning and leave the images as they were composed at the moment of exposure.

My next phase will be print on to A2 (next for me discover pigment inks and a decent printer ? any suggestions

Kind Regards,
Richard

 

[nsouto]

The Epson V750 has an excellent Professional review for scanning medium format film - even when its test compared against very expensive dedicated film scanners ! < FACT >

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_1.htm

I got a 4990 on the basis of a similar review in that site.
It promised the same: "no visible difference".

Owning and using a 4990, a 9000 and a coolscanV myself, I can confidently say those reviews are completely wrong.

The flatbeds are nowhere NEAR the quality, DR and sharpness achievable with a dedicated film scanner. And I suspect the same applies to drum scanners versus the rest.

And I got the results to prove this. Both with a 4990 and a v700. Against the 9000 and V. Same film frames, no comparison whatsoever.


Of course one can make the output of a flatbed look sharper with "careful sharpening", whatever that means. I simply couldn't and anyway don't have the time to do it. Much, much faster and more detailed to use an appropriate tool.


Quite frankly, I consider those reviews as a serious disservice to film photography in 35mm and 120 formats.


Flatbeds might be adequate for large format film. But for 35mm and 120? There is simply no comparison with the quality achievable through a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner.

 

[Ram]

I got a 4990 on the basis of a similar review in that site.
It promised the same: "no visible difference".

Owning and using a 4990, a 9000 and a coolscanV myself, I can confidently say those reviews are completely wrong.

The flatbeds are nowhere NEAR the quality, DR and sharpness achievable with a dedicated film scanner. And I suspect the same applies to drum scanners versus the rest.

And I got the results to prove this. Both with a 4990 and a v700. Against the 9000 and V. Same film frames, no comparison whatsoever.


Of course one can make the output of a flatbed look sharper with "careful sharpening", whatever that means. I simply couldn't and anyway don't have the time to do it. Much, much faster and more detailed to use an appropriate tool.


Quite frankly, I consider those reviews as a serious disservice to film photography in 35mm and 120 formats.


Flatbeds might be adequate for large format film. But for 35mm and 120? There is simply no comparison with the quality achievable through a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner.

Are http://www.tipa.com/italian/index.php awards are talking excrement ! Who am I to say

Although ... there are people who seem to get rather decent results - can this be to the SilverFast Ai Software ? or is it something else ?

Regards

 

[nsouto]

Are http://www.tipa.com/italian/index.php awards are talking excrement ! Who am I to say
Although ... there are people who seem to get rather decent results - can this be to the SilverFast Ai Software ? or is it something else ?

Dunno about awards: I just use lots of film and use various scanners a lot. And the flatbeds aren't anywhere near the quality I get on the coolscans.

Given Tipa rewards good technology and Epson's flatbeds are without doubt some of the very best flatbeds available, I see no conflict.
They are just nowhere near the quality of film scanners, for the specific purpose of scanning 135 and 120 film.


As for Silverfast: there might be more "pro" versions but based on the one I got bundled with the Epson, I wouldn't bother. Vuescan for the flatbeds and nikonscan for the film scanners do an excellent job for me. I've had to occasionally use vuescan on the 9000, for weird photos nikonscan just couldn't get right.
Nikonscan is more convenient for day to day use with the coolscans.

Having said that, I'm not gonna deride folks who are happy with their flatbed results:
if it suits their needs, all good.

All I'm saying is: do not restrict yourself to a flatbed based on those reviews.
The review results are incorrect and the conclusions invalid in what regards 135 and 120 film.



Epson flatbed lenses are nowhere near the quality of the ED lenses used in the coolscans, they simply cannot produce results better than their physical design limits.
A non-drum scanner (flatbed or dedicated) is for all intents and purposes a digital camera that scans line by line (or 3 lines at a time) as opposed to a digital camera that scans all lines -and colours- in one go.
Like all digital cameras, scan quality is highly dependent on sensel pitch, light source and on ability of lens to project a good image on the sensor. Where flatbeds are manifestly inferior is in the quality and focusing of that lens.


All this is highly relevant for small images like 135mm, less so for 120 and much, much less so for very large film, like 4X5 and larger. For more or less the same reasons why image quality increases as film size increases: same old, same old argument, really.

 

[donbga]

Are http://www.tipa.com/italian/index.php awards are talking excrement ! Who am I to say

Although ... there are people who seem to get rather decent results - can this be to the SilverFast Ai Software ? or is it something else ?

Regards

What is someones decent results is someone else's excrement. Once you have scans made on a high end scanner the output from Epson flatbeds are crap - comparatively speaking.

Don Bryant

 

[Ram]

I am now very tempted by the kind advice of your collective expertise to either : acquire a used Imacon Flextight CCD Scanner ? ... or to fly over to the US armed with my collection of 6x6cm negs and commission Lenny to scan them all !

What would work out the best for approx 30 scans to produce A2 exhibition prints from the image scans ?

I guess that the limitations will then also apply to the printer ? ink / Paper selection made too ?

I have an antique collection of original VELOX prints to restore, alas this must be a suitable job for the Epson flatbed then ? ... at least ?

Kind Regards,

 

[lenny]

I am now very tempted by the kind advice of your collective expertise to either : acquire a used Imacon Flextight CCD Scanner ? ... or to fly over to the US armed with my collection of 6x6cm negs and commission Lenny to scan them all !

What would work out the best for approx 30 scans to produce A2 exhibition prints from the image scans ?

I guess that the limitations will then also apply to the printer ? ink / Paper selection made too ?

I have an antique collection of original VELOX prints to restore, alas this must be a suitable job for the Epson flatbed then ? ... at least ?

Kind Regards,

Come on over! Actually, I have numerous folks sending me scans from other countries. So far, its France, Austria, Australia, Canada and Brazil. One more request for info this am from Finland. I have to say that I really love this. We are much too isolated in the US.

You mention the word "exhibition" above. To me, and this is an opinion, that means drum scan. I wouldn't suggest an Imacon, this is an expensive tool and I don't think it would outperform a Nikon, or certainly not by enough to warrant the extra dollars, or Euros, etc. It is a CCD scanner, after all. There are lots of used drum scanners around for less than a new Imacon/Hasselblad.

A year or so ago I scanned a collection of 8x10 prints for a project. I borrowed a brand new 750 from a friend to do this. The results were blurry and the software crashed often, it took 15 mins to make a scan. It turned out it was faster to mount the 8x10's on a drum (no liquid, of course) and scan them at 2000 dpi, with great sharpness, etc. A 2000 dpi scan on my scanner is a minute or two. Mounting took another minute or so. If they are larger than 8x10 my scanner won't work, but there are others who might have a 7500, and there are other scanners as well that can scan larger. There are lots of options - I just scanned a 48 inch drawing on Aztek's new wide format scanner. It scanned it at 500 dpi and I printed it the same size. Was incredibly sharp.

I highly recommend a printer with black and white inks in it. (No color inks). I just filled a 12 color Roland with 6 cool inks and 6 warm inks so I can doe warm, neutral, cold and split tone in any direction. Yes paper is a huge factor.

I'd be happy to help you. I don't want to be too commercial here, you can contact me off list if you have some interest... email's below. I hope that answers some of your questions.

I'm with Don and nsouto - the reviews are pure garbage...

Lenny

EigerStudios
eiger@eigerstudios.com

 

[Ram]

Hi Lenny,

Many thanks, for the info.

I now understand that you can produce stunning specialist quality fine art prints that are completely beyond the capabilities of most.

With gallery clients forking out a few thousand dollars for each limited edition print - there is no other way to obtain perfection.

I have to run a few things by a few people - I'll be in touch.

P.s

The V750 has now found its place as a proofing machine !

Kind Regards,

Richard

 

[lenny]

Hi Lenny,
I now understand that you can produce stunning specialist quality fine art prints that are completely beyond the capabilities of most.
Kind Regards,
Richard

Thank you very much for the kind words.

Lenny

EigerStudios
Scanning and Printing
eiger@eigerstudios.com

 

[Ram]

Thank you very much for the kind words.

Lenny

EigerStudios
Scanning and Printing
eiger@eigerstudios.com

Your most welcome, although I am merely stating a fact, as I can see that you are dedicated to perfection in your work

Kind Regards, Richard