Plustek 120 scanner

Hi All,

I am in need of a scanner and find that for my purposes it makes no sense for me to get anything other than the Plustek 120. I'm primarily a medium format film shooter, with maybe 20% of my shots on 35mm film. I have VERY good camera gear so it seems stupid for me to resort to anything less than the best scanner for 120 film. Nikon scanners are too old to be considered with perhaps the Coolscan 8000 a possibility. They are typically only $1000 or so. I'm not sure why they are so much cheaper than the Coolscan 9000.

I can't bet the only one who wants the very best scanner and so I find it odd that there is so little here on the Plustek 120. From their flickr group it's very clear that this scanner can carry the load for 120 film.

Does anyone here use that scanner happily?

I'm curious to hear 1st hand accounts.

Rattymouse said:

Hi All,

I am in need of a scanner and find that for my purposes it makes no sense for me to get anything other than the Plustek 120. I'm primarily a medium format film shooter, with maybe 20% of my shots on 35mm film. I have VERY good camera gear so it seems stupid for me to resort to anything less than the best scanner for 120 film. Nikon scanners are too old to be considered with perhaps the Coolscan 8000 a possibility. They are typically only $1000 or so. I'm not sure why they are so much cheaper than the Coolscan 9000.

I can't bet the only one who wants the very best scanner and so I find it odd that there is so little here on the Plustek 120. From their flickr group it's very clear that this scanner can carry the load for 120 film.

Does anyone here use that scanner happily?

I'm curious to hear 1st hand accounts.

Click to expand...

The Plustek can't even be focused, but maybe that's true of other brands currently in production. My Nikon 9000 has been trouble-free and an excellent performer since I bought it new. I don't think Nikon will even service these any more, so if it dies, I'll be shopping, too.

pschwart said:

The Plustek can't even be focused, but maybe that's true of other brands currently in production. My Nikon 9000 has been trouble-free and an excellent performer since I bought it new. I don't think Nikon will even service these any more, so if it dies, I'll be shopping, too.

Click to expand...

You dont need to focus the Plustek 120 as you can clearly and easily see from the flickr group filled with over 2,000 images. The image quality this scanner produces is excellent.

The Nikon is not an option for me as I wont pay that kind of money for very old non supported electronics.

Now if Nikon got back into the scanner game well.........

But they'd rather continue watching their camera sales swirl the drain.

Rattymouse said:

You dont need to focus the Plustek 120 as you can clearly and easily see from the flickr group filled with over 2,000 images. The image quality this scanner produces is excellent.

Click to expand...

It may be capable of quality scans, but I wouldn't make a purchase decision based on images posted on flickr

pschwart said:

It may be capable of quality scans, but I wouldn't make a purchase decision based on images posted on flickr

Click to expand...

If you look at enough images on flickr, you get a sense of what the scanner can do. No one I know has a Plustek 120 so I'm not blessed with any options for hands on experience.

There simply isnt a better scanner made today than the Plustek. Not at $2000 anyway.

We have a Plustek120 at work and have found it to be a highly capable scanner. The included SilverFast software has a steep learning curve however.

msage said:

We have a Plustek120 at work and have found it to be a highly capable scanner. The included SilverFast software has a steep learning curve however.

Click to expand...

SilverFast is a steaming pile of crap. Plustek should be embarrassed to have that crap in control of their hardware.

I had one, and while the scanner is well constructed, with many well thought out parts, I eventually returned it.

1. It's very, very slow. Way too slow for this decade. The Nikon's were slow but so was everything back then. You will be waiting a LONG time for a single scan, or even to get to the stage where you're ready to scan.

2. Silverfast is the worst. I didn't not have an opportunity to try Vuescan because I was unsure about keeping the unit, but Silverfast is just trash. I am a very knowledgeable user when it comes to scanning, and that program makes you want to pull your hair out. The customer support is about the same.

3. Here is the key problem and the reason it went back. Banding with 120 negs. If you search through some forum posts you can see people talking about the issue. My unit scans with faint but clearly discolored bands traveling down the middle of the images, especially with a lot of blue in them. There are many people reporting this problem, but no real solutions that I found. Plustek has not acknowledged it.

It's worth a try though if you have the scratch. As you can clearly see from Flickr, many many people are creating beautiful images with this machine. If you can, kudos to you. I wish it worked for me, I really do. I could deal with the slowness, but not the banding.

Speedgraphic said:

1. It's very, very slow. Way too slow for this decade. The Nikon's were slow but so was everything back then. You will be waiting a LONG time for a single scan, or even to get to the stage where you're ready to scan.

Click to expand...

According to Scandig Plustek OpticFilm 120, the Plustek scans a 6x7cm at 5300 ppi in 29:21 min without ICE and 1h 16 min with ICE. My Coolscan 9000+Nikonscan only takes about 8 minutes without ICE and about 11 minutes with ICE.

I'll add my 2 cents about scanning at home FWIW. While it's true that the Epson V7xx/8xx are markedly inferior to most dedicated film scanners, you really have to take a look at what that means in practice. I've scanning on everything from my home V700, to the Coolscan 9k, V, Plustek 120, and Hasselblad X1. Those high end scanners make big, beautiful files. They do indeed eek out every bit of information on your film. I frequently lament the fact that scanning tech basically stopped being advanced 10 years ago, a modern Nikon Coolscan would be a gem to have for sure. However, you have to ask what your ultimate output is going to be too. Do you need the best possible scan of every image right from the outset? Remember that the beauty of film is that we can scan it again later, or print it optically. In the darkroom, did we make fine art edition prints from the very first time we put the negative in an enlarger? Of course not.

The Epsons, when properly used, are capable of good scan quality, which only improves as the format increases. You can easily make a very good 13x19 from a 35mm scan, and larger from larger formats. For 4x5 I personally have been amazed with what I've been able to do with a Better Scanning holder. I've sold prints made from V700 scans, and many hang on my walls. No one would question their level of detail or color. Would a better scan be possible? Yes, absolutely, but I've made the V700 work for my needs. I've even scanned an image on a cool scan from 35mm, and compared it to a well done, well sharpened V700 scans, and found that there wasn't quite as big of a difference as I was expecting. Nothing that would be visible unless printing at the maximum output dimensions at 300dpi.

And as I was saying before, you can always re-scan the film. Were I to have a show and I couldn't print optically, I would simply rent time on a Hasselblad scanner, or pay someone to drum scan them. There is nothing wrong with a modest proofing scanner for the home user. Ultimately it's only pixel-peeping the scans that discourages people. In the darkroom days that would be like someone making proof prints on 20x30 paper and then evaluating them with a magnifying glass. How large do you intend to print regularly? That should determine what scanner you 'need' at home. If you were to buy a V850 and get into wet scanning your medium format, you could still make those images sing.

I can second the remarks about the high end Nikon Scanners. Whilst mine is not at the very top (LS5) the quality of the scans compared to my V500 are just simply as different as a cow and a bull. The colour reproduction, sharpness, bit depth, and overall general quality, are or were the top notch device of their day..... I still prefer film to digital.....pure digital for me is just too clinical.

Speedgraphic said:

Yes, absolutely, but I've made the V700 work for my needs. I've even scanned an image on a cool scan from 35mm, and compared it to a well done, well sharpened V700 scans, and found that there wasn't quite as big of a difference as I was expecting.

Click to expand...

Do you have any tips for optimising the V700/V800 for decent scans, software of choice etc etc

ianbarber said:

Do you have any tips for optimising the V700/V800 for decent scans, software of choice etc etc

Click to expand...

Everyone has their own ways of doing things, and here is mine:

First: invest in a betterscanning.com film holder and spend an hour or so setting it up just right for your scanner. It is worth it for the increase in sharpness and resolution.

Next, and I know this will be controversial around here, get to grips with Silverfast. It is expensive and ungainly software, but it is highly configurable and it really does work very well. Set up the Auto options so that it doesn't clip your scans, as using Auto can save you the hassle of setting black and white points for each individual channel. And spend a little time profiling your scanner (you'll need profiling targets; some versions of Silverfast come with them). I have to say I never got a usable profile straight out of Silverfast, much preferring the antiquated Monaco software that came with the scanner.

Lastly, scan everything as positive (and at full resolution) and invert and resize later in Photoshop or whatever your editing program of choice is. You are aiming for a fairly flat, 16-bit TIFF tagged with the AdobeRGB or ProPhoto RGB profile, as this will take fairly extensive tonal adjustments without banding.

Perservere and you will find that the V700/V800 is a terrific scanner that is capable of giving great results, especially with medium and larger formats.

artobest said:

Everyone has their own ways of doing things, and here is mine:

First: invest in a betterscanning.com film holder and spend an hour or so setting it up just right for your scanner. It is worth it for the increase in sharpness and resolution.

Click to expand...

I have just received the Better Scanning Holder for my V800. When adjusting the nylon pegs to acquire the right height, are you scanning a negative or some kind of known focused target.

I also use Silverfast AI and quite enjoy using it. You mentioned scanning as a Positive and then inverting it later on in Photoshop. What advantageous have you found going this route rather than scanning direct as a negative ?

ianbarber said:

Do you have any tips for optimising the V700/V800 for decent scans, software of choice etc etc

Click to expand...

I personally keep it simple. I use Epson scan, and I like it for the speed and efficiency it brings to the table. I try and get a good base scan with all the detail I want, and then make tweaks in LR or PS. I do have a Betterscanning holder, but I only use it for 6x6 and 4x5. It's great though, and I highly recommend it. In any holder your negative needs to be FLAT, and at the correct height. Lots has been said on that, so I won't go into it here.

The next thing I'll say, which I think is critical to the enjoyment of the Vxx scanners is...STOP PIXEL PEEPING YOUR SCANS. This goes back to what I said about how, back in the darkroom days we didn't start by proofing our negatives at 20x30 and then inspecting with a magnifying glass. The Vxx will produce an excellent 13x19 even from 35mm. The only time you'll notice a lack of detail is when viewing a high res scan of 35mm at 100%. Aside from when dusting and sharpening, if you want to view your image larger in LR or PS, I recommend looking at it at 50%. That should be an approximation of what a 13x19 would look like anyways. If you are absolutely flabberghasted by the quality of your own work, you can ALWAYS have someone drum or Imacon scan it. No sense spending thousands of dollars on the ability to make giant enlargements at the drop of a hat. I feel like that's commonly the goal of home scanners, but they're not exactly thinking it all through IMO.

ianbarber said:

I have just received the Better Scanning Holder for my V800. When adjusting the nylon pegs to acquire the right height, are you scanning a negative or some kind of known focused target.

I also use Silverfast AI and quite enjoy using it. You mentioned scanning as a Positive and then inverting it later on in Photoshop. What advantageous have you found going this route rather than scanning direct as a negative ?

Click to expand...

You need (preferably) a slide that you know to be sharp from edge to edge. Maybe a target of some kind if you're not sure. It needs to be kept flat in the holder, either by glass or betterscanning's T-holders (not sure if they still make those, but they were great).

Scanning as positive gives you a flatter scan - most scanning software applies a curve of some sort to a scan from negative, which, being baked in, can ruin your scan (IMO). If you set the individual channel black and white points (either manually or using Auto set up to not clip, as mentioned before), then invert in PS, you will achieve a pretty good jumping-off point for your final image.

Speedgraphic makes a good point about pixel-peeping, but personally I love doing that with film scans - there's something magical about filling the screen with lovely coloured speckles.

With the Nikon scanners I don't know how they do it, but I have never ever had an unsharp scan, even when the film was quite badly curled. I know there is an auto-focus facility which activates over each frame but I have never had to make any manual adjustments to it. Not having had a look inside, I am not certain if there is anything that assists the film to keep in focus, but I suspect there may be a set of rollers where the film passes between just before the scan.

Has anyone any idea?