Newbie here...scanner advice needed

[Sandtrout]

I have windows 7. I use both 35mm and 120 TLR cameras (or at least I still have them and in good working order) that I want to use for film and to scan the negs. I don't want to get my feet wet by spending too little and then having to save up for something that I should have saved up for in the beginning. Any suggestions, ideas, or links would be appreciated. My purpose will probably be still lifes and scenic that I want to put on my wall and send out as greeting cards or post cards. Thanks in advance! DAN

 

[Alan Klein]

I use a Epson V600 for both 35mm and 120. It's around $200. Better is the V700 around $600 although there's an update coming out next month called the V800.

What size will your wall prints be?

 

[Alan Klein]

You can check my Flickr site for samples - click on link below.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

The 800 and 850 don't seem to have improved specs over the 700 and 750. Only change seems to be to an LED light source.

 

[Pioneer]

I use the V500 for both those formats. It is the older brother of the V600. It does pretty decent on 120 medium format film. I also use it for 35mm and have not been disappointed. I do not print larger than 12x16.

Refurbished V500 scanners can currently be purchased from Epson for $99. Personally I think it is a pretty good deal for someone who just wants to try it out without investing too much money. If you want to print really big then you need to send things out for better scans or spend a lot more on your scanner.

 

[Sandtrout]

Wall Size?

I use a Epson V600 for both 35mm and 120. It's around $200. Better is the V700 around $600 although there's an update coming out next month called the V800.

What size will your wall prints be?

I was thinking no bigger then 16 x 20 but what would be needed to go bigger? In the "old way" I probably would have used a Mamiya Universal with some 6x9 backs I have but that was considering the use of an enlarger (which I still have). There's a formula I used to use to develop ALL my films called AB 55 but it's no longer made. Just sent the inventor's wife a letter a GROVELING letter with all kinds of butt kisses to see if she still had it and would send it. No response so far. It was a great panthermic developer for use from 65 - 80 so I could develop without putting my solutions in a water bath...sooooooo much easier but may have to go back to the water bath again. Sucks! But don't want all those 120's to go to waste!

Also went to your photo link...you have an experienced eye. I kept thinking, "oh...that was nicely seen!" Great Eye! DAN

 

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for your comments. I think Pioneer has a good idea with refurbished V500. Give it a try and see if you like it.

 

[lenny]

I wouldn't scan 35mm or 120 with a consumer flatbed. I'd get a Nikon or Flextight scanner. or a drum scanner to do this. They are all available for around $1500. If you are looking to make a 16x20 I wouldn't use the consumer level...

Lenny

 

[L Gebhardt]

I wouldn't scan 35mm or 120 with a consumer flatbed. I'd get a Nikon or Flextight scanner. or a drum scanner to do this. They are all available for around $1500. If you are looking to make a 16x20 I wouldn't use the consumer level...

Lenny

I agree. A high res DSLR and slide/neg copy rig will also get you very good black and white scans. 35mm results comparable to my drum scanner in my testing.

 

[Richard Boutwell]

I agree. A high res DSLR and slide/neg copy rig will also get you very good black and white scans. 35mm results comparable to my drum scanner in my testing.

I would love to see the rest of those tests. I think it would be worth it to note that not all drum scanners are created equal, so putting it up against something like a Scanmate might not be the best comparison.

For what it is worth, if you are serious about scanning negatives but don't want to go the drum scanner route, then an Epson 700/50 with the wet-mount kit or scan science adjustable height carriers, or a Nikon film/slide scanner with a wet mount carrier are what I would recommend. I personally wouldn't ever want to go much larger than 12 to 16 inches for 120 film and up to 10-12 inches for 35mm. I don't ever recommend the plastic film holders that come with the scanner for anything other than quick proof scans.

 

[lenny]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone but this is crap. Recommending a blurry Epson flatbed to make 16x20's from 35mm is ridiculous, and so is comparing a DSLR to a drum scanner. It's just not reasonable, and I'm not buying it.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone but this is crap. Recommending a blurry Epson flatbed to make 16x20's from 35mm is ridiculous, and so is comparing a DSLR to a drum scanner. It's just not reasonable, and I'm not buying it.

Lenny, you can see the results I got with black and white film here. It's very possible that the Scanmate 5000 isn't the best drum scanner (I know it isn't), and it's also equally possible I'm not the best scanner operator of said Scanmate (I'm certainly not). However for 35mm film I can see the D800E with Rodagon D lens resolves more detail than the Canon FS4000, and comes close the the Scanmate 5000 at 5000ppi. I am therefor confident that it will do at least as well as the Nikon 4000ppi scanners for 35mm film. And it does as well as I need for most purposes.

Color slides seem to scan well. Color negatives give me trouble no matter which scanner I use (obviously operator incompetence). But I think there are some issues with using the DSLR for color negatives that go beyond my own issues scanning color negatives.

It would be interesting to see how much more the Aztek 8000 resolves from normal 35mm film (and some take for ultimate resolution). My uses for 35mm are mostly handheld so I don't expect to see much difference. I bet on techpan with a tripod and a very good lens the higher quality scanner will show its stuff.

 

[Richard Boutwell]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone but this is crap. Recommending a blurry Epson flatbed to make 16x20's from 35mm is ridiculous, and so is comparing a DSLR to a drum scanner. It's just not reasonable, and I'm not buying it.

Lenny is right, and rightfully blunt about it.

I should have clarified that I don't think going larger than 16 inches with 120 film was from a drum scan. The comparison I made on my site between a wet-mounted flatbed and drum scan from a 2 1/4 was unsharpened, but trying to get an acceptable print from a Epson scan will take quite a lot of tonal massaging, careful sharpening, and modest print sizes with a good printer, paper, careful profiling, which is usually beyond what the average consumer the equipment is marketed for. That is why they have the preset unsharpmasking, and auto-exposure/tonal enhancements.

The reality is that most people are not going to go with all that is involved in acquiring/learning/maintaing drum scanners, so I would rather people learn the ins and outs of making good flatbeds scans, sharpening the carefully, and being realistic about the prints they can expect from them.

I never understood the fascination of making large prints from 35mm, traditional enlargements or inkjets. The film just doesn't hold the detail that will make a good print much larger than the sizes I mentioned.

 

[Richard Boutwell]

Lenny, you can see the results I got with black and white film here. It's very possible that the Scanmate 5000 isn't the best drum scanner (I know it isn't), and it's also equally possible I'm not the best scanner operator of said Scanmate (I'm certainly not). However for 35mm film I can see the D800E with Rodagon D lens resolves more detail than the Canon FS4000, and comes close the the Scanmate 5000 at 5000ppi. I am therefor confident that it will do at least as well as the Nikon 4000ppi scanners for 35mm film. And it does as well as I need for most purposes.

Those examples are closer than I would have expected, but I think the telling factor is that the drum scan maintains edge contrast (the metal grate on the bridge is an example), and detail retention in the shadows. That is what I found when I was making Dead Link Removed The shadow detail is the first to go, and then followed by a general mushyness in the midtones.

I think the limiting factor is going to be the original negative—the scanner might not be resolving more detail because it really isn't there. I think the point is that if you want to make bigger prints and retain more detail it makes sense to use a bigger camera, better lens, and a tripod, which is exactly the opposite of what 35mm is meant to do.

 

[Sandtrout]

So far...thanks for all the informative replies...but i'll be honest...

this is sooooooooooo new to me that a lot of it is over my head. I've taken to looking up a LOT of all of your past posts, mostly to learn more. It's quite a transition for me to go from an enlarger (Beseler 4x5 enlarger...the old gray one) to a digital camera. Mine is a "cheapie" Fuji that I got at Kmart. My Canon (7.7) died on me and the Fuji (14mp) is it for now. I usually make 4x6's, post cards, and Christmas type cards and occasionally an 7.5 x 11 and am surprised how good they come out. But...I miss shooting with the 35mm and the 120's (Rolleiflex, Yashica Mat, Mamiya Universal, Mamiya TLR C330, and Hasselblad. After the advice here I might start off with the Epson scanners to see if that'll satisfy me. Thanks again for the most helpful advice! DAN

 

[Sandtrout]

I use the V500 for both those formats. It is the older brother of the V600. It does pretty decent on 120 medium format film. I also use it for 35mm and have not been disappointed. I do not print larger than 12x16.

Refurbished V500 scanners can currently be purchased from Epson for $99. Personally I think it is a pretty good deal for someone who just wants to try it out without investing too much money. If you want to print really big then you need to send things out for better scans or spend a lot more on your scanner.

I think this may be the ticket for me after reading all the posts here...where did you see it for $99?

 

[Sandtrout]

Also, not sure where to post this but I'll try right here...I got such good advice on scanners here. Where is a good place to learn about adobe photoshop? I've never used that either. Thanks again for all the help. DAN

 

[lenny]

Lenny, you can see the results I got with black and white film

I looked at them before I commented...

It would be interesting to see how much more the Aztek 8000 resolves from normal 35mm film (and some take for ultimate resolution). My uses for 35mm are mostly handheld so I don't expect to see much difference. I bet on techpan with a tripod and a very good lens the higher quality scanner will show its stuff.

There are going to be a couple of differences. The Aztek Premier will be sharper. The Scanmate is a built with a 6 micron engine and the Premier is a 3. I would suspect that my experience with the machine might also be a factor.

The PMT is going to be handle far more grays and subtle color shifts because its a PMT vs the ccd of when you are not drum scanning. Here's from a client this past weekend...

"You sir, are a perfectionist! The scans have far exceeded my expectations. I'm especially impressed with the colors. My epson scanner chokes on vibrant blues - they quickly posterize no matter how I scan them."

Dan may only need the lower end of quality. That's fine. Its a place to start. Especially if he doesn't know his Photoshop. However, when we talk about what kind of quality is "best" or "exquisite" we shouldn't be talking about ccd scanners, in a camera or not. I am currently printing a b&w image from a late model digital camera. It isn't holding up, at 40 inches, to what even medium format film would do. It's not even close.

I'm happy if people are getting results they like with whatever. I am openly concerned about accuracy.

Lenny

 

[L Gebhardt]

However, when we talk about what kind of quality is "best" or "exquisite" we shouldn't be talking about ccd scanners, in a camera or not.

I agree with you there. I'm not claiming the DSLR route is better than a drum scanner. Only that it's worlds better than an Epson flatbed and slightly better than the Canon/Nikon CCD scanners. I originally looked into it as a fast way of scanning slides (for web use) and found it did a much better job for slides and black and white negatives than the Canon I've had for years. I only point it out because it's a viable alternative to the Epson flatbeds that people recommend. And it's possibly cheaper too, depending on if you already own one.

I'm not surprised you are having trouble with a 40 inch print from a DSLR. I find the D800E has started to fall apart by that size. Most other cameras really look bad in my opinion.

One nitpicky point - the D800 (and most modern DSLRs) is a CMOS sensor, not CCD. Not that that's a good thing, just a fact.

 

[WJJ3]

pakon for 35. canon flatbed for MF.

 

[Doug Fisher]

>>where did you see it for $99? <<

Go the Epson Store, then click on the clearance tab, then click on scanners. Since it is based on returns, the stock can vary each day so you just have to watch for a deal to eventually pop up if you don't see the scanner model you desire.

Doug

 

[Alan Klein]

Epson has a refurbished V600 for $145. That's what I use. The advantages of the V600 over the V500 is you can scan three 6x7s MF images at a time against two for the V500. It also can apply ICE to photo prints while the V500 cannot.
Epson Perfection V600 Photo Scanner - Refurbished - Product Information - Epson America, Inc.

Edit: free shipping.

 

[Pioneer]

Epson has a refurbished V600 for $145. That's what I use. The advantages of the V600 over the V500 is you can scan three 6x7s MF images at a time against two for the V500. It also can apply ICE to photo prints while the V500 cannot.
Epson Perfection V600 Photo Scanner - Refurbished - Product Information - Epson America, Inc.

Edit: free shipping.

I wasn't aware that the V600 could handle 3 6x7 frames.

I think though, were I to upgrade, I would go to the 700 or 750 for the large format scan capability.

But, since I already contact print 8x10 or 4x5, and then scan the print with the V500, I haven't really seen a big need.