What would be a better choice here?
Keep in mind the budget and the fact that I am just a hobbyist who sometimes likes to take some photos with film. So I am ok with "good enough". I very much hate spending ages scanning, correcting and editing my shots. So that is maybe something to keep in mind when suggesting stuff.
Thanks!Welcome aboard!
What are you scanning?
If you use true b&w then DSLR scanning is a probably a better choice as scans can be very fast with the right setup, ICE doesn't work with b&w and post work is very simple.
If you use slides then post work is just as simple as b&w, scans are faster but now the lack of ICE can add time in post work.
If you use color negatives then post work is no longer so simple even if scans are faster and no ICE.
Thank you. Yeah, I've read a few topics already. Sadly they didn't really lead me to an answer yet. That's why I've come here with slightly more concrete options. Either this specific camera setup (slight variations are possible), or this scanner (again variations are possible, although I can't find anything else in this price range).@roli welcome to photrio.
You are about to receive a lot of conflicting advice. We have two small armies here: on the left you have the scanner lovers. On the right we have those who scan with digital cameras. Each group thinks of the other as uneducated and arrogant. My advice is to read the arguments from both sides, and then discard those who did not provide full-sized samples. I am in one of those camps and usually enjoy ridiculing the other, obviously uneducated and arrogant side, but tonight I'm not in the mood
One practical advice I have is this: if you decide to go with camera scanning, I suggest avoiding the EFH because its medium format mask is poorly designed. All other film holders have slanted edges at the bottom, but EFH frame edges are straight and square: they drop shadow on your film, you will be getting dark/vignetted borders because of this.
Currently I have a Plustek 8100 for my 35mm stuff and it's fine The results are ok, the thing that infuriates me is the time I need to faff around with editing stuff in Silverfast too much to get what I like. And then usually even more time on final edits to get rid of dust and improve the colors.
In terms of dedicated scanners the choices seem pretty slim to say the least. Epson V600 or something like the Reflecta x66-Scan (which looks more like a toy than a real scanner). I am not willing to spend more than 500€ for a scanner only.
So I am ok with "good enough". I very much hate spending ages scanning, correcting and editing my shots. So that is maybe something to keep in mind when suggesting stuff.
If you are going to get a Fuji, you *do* want that 18-55 f2.8-4 "kit" lens, and getting it packaged with the camera will save you some money. However, that lens would not be my first choice for copying film. One of the great things about the Fuji digital cameras is the good selection of adaptors available, so you have a wide variety of glass available from many manufacturers. For my Fuji X-T1 <film copy rig> I bought a Fuji:M42 adaptor, a used M42 bellows, and adapted a moderately priced enlarger lens to the bellows. Here are some examples of <Delta 400> copied with my setup, and also, <Ektar 100>
On the other hand, it does take a fair amount of ingenuity and patience to put together a workable setup, as opposed to buying an off-the-shelf solution like a scanner.
As for: "I very much hate spending ages scanning, correcting and editing my shots." - a certain amount of that is unavoidable. Once you get your camera rig set up (which may be somewhat fussy), then the "scanning" part goes pretty fast. And, if you are familiar with your favorite editing software, then the correcting and editing part is not too tedious for b&w negatives and slides. However, if you shoot a lot of color negative film, be prepared to spend some time learning how to invert the colors and get results you are happy with. Depending on what software comes with the scanner, inverting color negatives may be one area where the scanner software may offer a slight advantage over camera copies. On the other hand, if the scanner software is crap, you might be better off without it. As far as I know, there is no truly quick and easy way to consistently get good color from color negatives, no matter what method you use to copy them. It gets a lot easier with experience, but there is a learning curve.
I agree, but I do find the grain a bit odd when you zoom in.Your examples from Ektar 100 looks very good to my eyes. How much time do you spend on post work to achieve these kinds of results?
Thanks. I can’t find info if they ship to Europe without registering. But even if they did... when you factor in shipping costs and customs I am pretty close to what I would pay for a new one locally.Not sure if you can buy from Epson directly. But if you can, they currently have a refurbished V600 with one-year included warranty for $139.99 or EU119.
https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/...00-Photo-Scanner---Refurbished/p/B11B198011-N
Thank you, Les. I can't say with any certainty how long it took to post-process those. I imported that roll into Lightroom at 5:14PM and uploaded the finished images to my website at 10:21PM. But I doubt I worked on them the entire time, so it was almost certainly less than 5 hours for the roll. But that time included not just color adjustments, but also writing captions, assigning keywords, and editing the metadata to include the aperture, shutter speed, lens, correct capture date, etc. all of which takes a significant amount of time. Next time I convert a roll I will pay more attention to the time I spent actually editing the image, not including the metadata.Your examples from Ektar 100 looks very good to my eyes. How much time do you spend on post work to achieve these kinds of results?
If that image illustrates what you like about the color rendition of flatbed scanners, I can see why you don’t like camera-scans.I use Silverfast mostlyt these days, version 8 (i think) came free with the V600. Specifically for color negatives, the Colorcast removal works very well and is the closest I can get to my local camera shops Fuji Frontier.
Like Ozmoose I find many camera scans very saturated and quite often see them as rather un-film like. But whatever, that's me.
Portra 160 at ISO640, Pentax 645N, Cinestill CS41, Bleach Bypass.
Absolutely.If that image illustrates what you like about the color rendition of flatbed scanners, I can see why you don’t like camera-scans.
I use Silverfast mostly these days, version 8 (i think) came free with the V600. Specifically for color negatives, the Colorcast removal works very well and is the closest I can get to my local camera shops Fuji Frontier.
Like ozmoose I find many camera scans very saturated and quite often see them as rather un-film like. But whatever, that's me.
Lucky you. Mine came with the Epson software which is okay but nothing special. My Plustek had Silverfast version 6.6, but that was in the late Iron Age (2009).
I did think of upgrading to the latest Silverfast, but I'm now an age pensioner and too mean (= skint) to invest all that dosh in it.
I believe Epson Scan 2 is for Apple. I use the regular Epson Scan on my Windows 10 desktop. I think you have to upgrade the freebie SE8 to take advantage of color-correcting negative color scans. The SE8 is a loss leader and not better than Epsonscan IMO.Currenty produced and supported Epson flatbeds are eligible for free Silverfast SE 8 software (because the new Epson Scan 2 doesn't support ICE and old Epson Scan doesn't work on all new operating systems). So, it doesn't matter if your scanner didn't have Silverfast when you bought the scanner, you can download it now for free.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?