Best currently available 35mm scanner?

[xtolsniffer]

What do you reckon is the best currently available 35mm scanner (excluding the fabulously expensive that is)? I'm not really thinking of any long-discontinued ones, I've had a few Nikon Coolscans in the past (IV) and the stepper motors always went - I think I was probably unlucky, so I'm looking for something a bit more up to date. I'm currently using a Reflecta RPS-7200. It's not too bad but with Silverfast there is an issue with using both iSRD and multiple exposure at the same time (Silverfast says it's a driver issue so something they can't fix), and Vuescan won't work with it above 3600ppi (Ed Hamrick says it's a driver issue so something he can't fix). That's not a deal-breaker as it can only really get up to about 3,200ppi but the rollers that pull the film through slip on many films so batch scanning is pointless and you have to spend a bit of time aligning each frame. None of the other current offerings seem to be much better really unless you go very high end. Any thoughts or experience? I generally use it with E6 or negs prior to sending the file off for printing (Velvia, Provia, Ektar and Portra) up to 12"x16" which is pushing 35mm to be honest but is OK when viewed at distance.

 

[jim10219]

DSLR (or mirrorless). That's what I use now and it's got better resolution, dynamic range, and is quicker than anything else I've used, including drum scanners.

 

[Eric Rose]

I use my Panasonic G85 with a Nikkor 60mm macro lens. I put the negs in a negative carrier and lay that on top of a light table. Then attach the camera to a tripod and shoot down onto the neg carrier. Works like a charm. For MF and LF I use an Epson Pro V750.

 

[xtolsniffer]

i have thought about going the DSLR route but do you not get problems with dust?

 

[L Gebhardt]

i have thought about going the DSLR route but do you not get problems with dust?

Yes, if you do not clean your negatives. About the same amount of dust spotting as a drum scanner has been my experience.

 

[jspillane]

I gave up on flatbeds and moved to a Pentax K1 and a light table (with pixel shift if necessary, although it's generally overkill, although if you are worried about the bayer filter impacting images, it is a way around it).
Dust is a much bigger pain with flatbeds than DSLR/Mirrorless scanning, in my experience. I am getting better files, faster, with less effort overall. I am looking to beef up my set-up sometime this summer and really get cracking on them.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Hmmm...interesting. I do have a Nikon D700 (12 megapixel I think). I also have an Olympus bellows system and their excellent macro lenses that I've adapted to a nikon fit. I could source a slide copier adapter for that. I don't use adobe products (I edit in Gimp) so am not sure about removing the mask in colour neg film...

 

[destroya]

have done the DSLR thing and didnt like the results. I have a nikon CS9000 for 120 that I have used on 35mm, but the best I've used, and still use is the minolta Dimage 5400. I have version 1 as its the best for B&W. Color is great as well. I have many 16x20 velvie 50 slide scans that are perfect prints.

software also has an important place in the scanning process, so dont overlook that

 

[L Gebhardt]

Hmmm...interesting. I do have a Nikon D700 (12 megapixel I think). I also have an Olympus bellows system and their excellent macro lenses that I've adapted to a nikon fit. I could source a slide copier adapter for that. I don't use adobe products (I edit in Gimp) so am not sure about removing the mask in colour neg film...

If you have a color enlarger head you can use that as the light source for your DSLR and dial out the mask with the filters. Then it's a simple invert operation. Of course you can also do it with a levels operation per channel.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I've been using an Epson V800 flatbed scanner. It has trays to hold 35mm, 120, and 4x5 negatives. No problems and it does a good job.

 

[Helios 1984]

I'm happy with my Konica-Minolta DiMage IV.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Update: I've been spending a little more time with my RPS7200. While true 7200 ppi is an illusion, I think I can squeeze 3,800-4000 ppi out of it with care. The issue with iSRD and ME is only if you use 1:1 preview, without enabling that you can use both - I find ME doesn't do much for shadow detail but can put some detail back into highlights. The roller slipping issue has improved after a bit of a clean with a blower - perhaps it was just dust. I did have a go with dslr 'scanning' but my D700 cant't quite hit the resolution of my scanner, and retouching and negative mask removed is just too much effort.

 

[John51]

Not something I've tried yet as I don't have a digi camera but taking multiple shots of the neg and then stitching them together looks doable.

I have a small cnc machine that can accurately move the neg/lightbox to the next position but what would also work imo is a small (and cheap) compound milling vice. Available for ~£20.

 

[xtolsniffer]

You don't really have to be that accurate for stitching (though it does help) just as long as there is good enough overlap between shots. The issue I had was that my scanner can out-resolve a single frame on my D700. But to take multiple shots to boost resolution (I've measured about 25 potential megapixels on Velvia) I would have to shoot the left hand side then the right hand side of the frame in landscape format and stitch them. This means either having the film vertical and moving the neg holder up and down with my D700 in landscape, or having the camera in portrait format and moving the film left to right. Unfortunately neither works with my Olympus bellows set-up due to limited movements and clearances. I could of course just use a copy stand or tripod looking down onto a light-box, but as I have my scanner on my desk, it's just an easier option. It was fun trying it though. I'm sure a camera like a D850 could do the job in one go though, but I don't have one.

 

[Helge]

The most important thing with DSLR scanning is to hold the film completely flat. That way you’ll be able to use optimum aperture for best sharpness and stitch with no problems.

A glass sandwich or a glass, film, plastic sandwich is the only way to achive that.

I usually just use a bit of lighter fluid in between to avoid NR and eliminate any air to to solid transitions.

 

[trendland]

I've been using an Epson V800 flatbed scanner. It has trays to hold 35mm, 120, and 4x5 negatives. No problems and it does a good job.

Theo - I know you have enough experience to compare scanned films (from resolution) with original film resolution.

So let me short ask : Do you hold full resolution of 4x5 inch ( I guess mostly with bw film) with flatbed scanner ?
It may be simply to find out via "cut out enlargement/close up enlargement".

Because there was a guy in Collogne who said terrible things concerning 35mm / 120 bw film
concerning resolution (Delta 100) wich we all know as quite high resolution film (with special development).

Just his Delta 100 in 4x5 inch reached aceptable results vs a digital Nikon???

But he used , to compare, a flatbed scanner....hmmm?

From my point it has to do with scanning 35mm film/ 4,5 x 6/ 6 x 7. with the squere of a flatbed.
So fiirstly the squere of 4x5 inch suported him with exaptable results.

Now I asked : is 4x5 on a fladbed at least (nearly) possible with full 4x5 resolution?

with regards

PS : I guess for max. quality you use your darkroom - and betweeen you also make scans?

 

[Helge]

If a flatbed doesn’t extract near full resolution from 135 it's only logical that it wouldn’t do that with large format.
The guy is obviously full of shit. You can tell him I said that if he asks.

It’s disheartening and worrying that so much FUD and misinformation is spread because people think they have bought the ultimate with an Epson flatbed.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I went with latest Plustek one year ago then it was periodical sale. Regular SF version.
It took time to get used to this software, it will crash if multi tasking, but results are fine.

I think, taking pictures of the frame with DSLR is even better on results, but way too much of the hassle. Nikon has convinced solution and at least one camera converts the negative image in camera. But it is much more expensive than Plustek on periodical sale at BH.

 

[Helge]

No more hassle than so much else related to photography.
Once you have nailed the setup, it’s very flexible.
I’d say far better in that regard too than a scanner.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
So let me short ask : Do you hold full resolution of 4x5 inch ( I guess mostly with bw film) with flatbed scanner ?
...

For 35mm, at most I scan at 4800 dpi - usually less than that. It has trays for medium format and large format, but I have not used those trays. My medium and large format work is printed at a lab.

If a flatbed doesn’t extract near full resolution from 135 it's only logical that it wouldn’t do that with large format.
The guy is obviously full of shit. You can tell him I said that if he asks.

It’s disheartening and worrying that so much FUD and misinformation is spread because people think they have bought the ultimate with an Epson flatbed.

Is that directed at me? All I said is that the V800 "does a good job". I said nothing about large format other than trays are available.

 

[Helge]

Is that directed at me? All I said is that the V800 "does a good job". I said nothing about large format other than trays are available.

No it was directed at Trendlands story about a guy from Cologne right above my post.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

If a flatbed doesn’t extract near full resolution from 135 it's only logical that it wouldn’t do that with large format.
The guy is obviously full of shit. You can tell him I said that if he asks.

It’s disheartening and worrying that so much FUD and misinformation is spread because people think they have bought the ultimate with an Epson flatbed.

You do understand that any detail photographed on 35mm is much smaller physically on that negative than the same detail recorded on a larger negative? Actually, I don't think you do. But I agree, so much misinformation out there.

 

[Helge]

You do understand that any detail photographed on 35mm is much smaller physically on that negative than the same detail recorded on a larger negative? Actually, I don't think you do. But I agree, so much misinformation out there.

What indicates I don’t? There is always more detail given enough light and the wavelength of light being small enough.
But yeah the same detail will be far smaller on a 35mm frame than a 8x10. That’s just a truism.
LF is better than a kleinbild/Barnack frame.
Point being?

 

[trendland]

No it was directed at Trendlands story about a guy from Cologne right above my post.

Righty right Helge - I got it in mind but I don't remember the name oft that Cologne stationed photographer. He was specialized with 4x5 inch bw since many years and "tryed" a comparison with a digital Nikon (in bw modus/bw post processed digital source)!

And nothing less than Ilfords Delta100 in different formats he sent into that competition!

From my point the Delta 100 (with superior developer) is one of the best (and highest resolutest)
films one can get today beside special microfilms.

In 35mm Delta100 is showing extraordinary details with perceptol and box speed ISO 25 - 50!

Of course one should use a very good lens at the optimal aperature (with trypot). This Cologne
guy did all oft it - obviously in a very precise manner (he knows his job).

With 6x7 format Delta100 is R E A L excellent (just from my point) !

But this guy came from his test run concerning resolution to following conclusion :

35mm Delta 100 has miserable resolution in direct comparison to the 36Mp Nikon D800.

6x7 with Delta 100 is quite better but the 6x7 format isn't able to show the finest details the
D800 easily provides.

First with 4x5 inch the result of film was superior in comparison to digital!

But it wasn't very much better. Friends I wasn't able to find this article again!

I am sure I had this article saved from the net. But it is much more complicate to me to remember
where I stored that saved original article than starting to reserche it from the net again ......
I found the blog of that "Cologne guy" there he discribed his NikonD800 vs 4x5 inch comparison
in a short form.
The original "test" was much longer (3 - 4 pages ) if I would only remember from where he publisher?
It wasn't Petapixel - it was more in direction of a photo magazine?
Never mind the original test was in addition with a midt format Hassi 80Mp.

And from his resume he found out that 4x5 Delta is nearly the same like 35mm digital.

But the Hassi in midt format was real better than 4x5 !

?????........????

So he decided that 4x5 inch has no need any more because a 35mm full film digital reaches nearly the same resolution...(but he will proceed with 4x5 because he like it)

The last issue he mentioned was : The Hassi is superior against 35mm digital Nikon (and superior concerning Delta 4x5 inch) but in comparison to 35mm it is not an immense profit (so he wondered and relativeted in regard of the much higher pricing of the digital Hassi!

The last he mentioned sounds quite logical to me (remember in 2012 digital midt format used smaler sensors in comparison of today [~ 50% more space in relation to full frame digital] to that time].

And at the very end he discribed he scanned his films with an Epson flatbed scanner.!

here is the short version (missing Hassi comparison/use of Portra400/missing additional details of the bridge railing)

blogtimes.info/nikon-d800-vs-4x5-grosformat-negativ

with regards

PS : His conclusions should be wrong from my point! His comparison is done with very much entusiasm and he made a very fine job.

But (just from my point - some of you may see this different) his approach is REAL uncientific.

Because of what ? ....because of he was "just" comparing 3 different digital sensors between :

1) ....the 35mm sensor of his Nikon D800
2)......the ~32mm x 40mm sensor of the digital 2012 Hassi
3)......the scanning unit of his Epson700


that has nothing to tell about the films he used.. .DO YOU AGREE ?

PPS : Have fun with translation of the article of that Cologne guy and you may feel like me - such often!

 

[trendland]

For 35mm, at most I scan at 4800 dpi - usually less than that. It has trays for medium format and large format, but I have not used those trays. My medium and large format work is printed at a lab.




Is that directed at me? All I said is that the V800 "does a good job". I said nothing about large format other than trays are available.

I see Theo if I understand you quite correct a flat bed scanner is usefull to have nice results in between and for best pictures you made enlargements via darkrooom - so as I expected!

with greetings