Plustek???

[machine]

I have scanned negs for ~3 years with the Nikon ES-2 set, 60mm f/2.8 AF-S, and a D800.

Recently - I bought a Plustek 8300i (the latest one) because I had to scan 20-25 yr old color negatives - I was not looking forward to dealing with color inversion, or with fixing scratches on the emulsion without infrared scratch/dust removal. And this new model promised to be faster and have better software.

I have some experience with Plustek scanners in the past - going back to at least 15 years. And with the Silverfast software, which I never liked.

Suffice it to say - I was BLOWN AWAY by the quality of the Plustek, and how fast it is - the hardware, but also the software, and how quick my workflow can be. I am scanning to TIFF, with iSRD for color negs and of course without it for AgBr B&W. But I am scanning as positives (though then editing in Lightroom).

I highly recommend the Plustek 8300i and the latest Silverfast AI software it comes with!

 

[Alan Johnson]

I have been using a Plustex 8100. it is good enough to produce prints larger than I will ever require:

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have been using a Plustex 8100. it is good enough to produce prints larger than I will ever require:

That's a very sharp scan much better than my Epson V850.

 

[TomR55]

I have used a Plustek 8200i for several years. I have nothing really with which to compare so I couldn't say how it stacks up against other units. Two things that I would note: (1) I really DO NOT LIKE the negative carrier. It's "fiddly' and frequently requires fine adjustments with each frame on a strip, and (2) It only scans 135.

I have another scanner, a Pacifica PrimeFilmXA SE that I use to scan rolls. It too has its "quirks" and I don't really think that it provides a true 10K resolution (but that's not based on scientific measurement). Nor have I attempted to successfully scan 36 frames without intervention.

I suspect that few companies are producing scanners. I'd gladly pay more money for something like a Noritsu L-50/L-60 but I don't know enough about their compatibility with Macs, nor do I know anything about their maintenance.

I suspect that if some enterprising company produced something in the $1,500 to $2,500 range, many serious photographers would buy it. But I don't know this for certain ... I'm sure that others in the forum could elaborate.

T

 

[Steven Lee]

@machine maybe I am reading your comment wrong, but in the beginning you said you weren't interested in color inversion, but then you said you're scanning negatives as positives. How does inversion happen then?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have used a Plustek 8200i for several years. I have nothing really with which to compare so I couldn't say how it stacks up against other units. Two things that I would note: (1) I really DO NOT LIKE the negative carrier. It's "fiddly' and frequently requires fine adjustments with each frame on a strip, and (2) It only scans 135.

I have another scanner, a Pacifica PrimeFilmXA SE that I use to scan rolls. It too has its "quirks" and I don't really think that it provides a true 10K resolution (but that's not based on scientific measurement). Nor have I attempted to successfully scan 36 frames without intervention.

I suspect that few companies are producing scanners. I'd gladly pay more money for something like a Noritsu L-50/L-60 but I don't know enough about their compatibility with Macs, nor do I know anything about their maintenance.

I suspect that if some enterprising company produced something in the $1,500 to $2,500 range, many serious photographers would buy it. But I don't know this for certain ... I'm sure that others in the forum could elaborate.

T

The Epson V850 is currently US$1300. So I suppose if the new scanner is better, many would buy it.

 

[250swb]

I suspect that if some enterprising company produced something in the $1,500 to $2,500 range, many serious photographers would buy it. But I don't know this for certain ... I'm sure that others in the forum could elaborate.

T

For that you could buy a digital camera and macro lens capable of 'scanning' multiple formats, plus a few other gizmo's to make it work, and if that isn't good enough think of it like this, you get a digital camera and not just a scanner.

The only thing I use my film scanner for nowadays is for digital contact sheets, just it scan while I do something else. For the serious scans to post edit I set up my Nikon Z7. Which to be honest is just about the only thing I use it for, but I'm not going back to the bad old days of medium format scanners that took an age to scan and at a quality below what I can achieve now. So goodbye Nikon 9000, Plustek 120, Minolta Multi Pro, and Epson V700.

 

[albireo]

For that you could buy a digital camera and macro lens capable of 'scanning' multiple formats, plus a few other gizmo's to make it work, and if that isn't good enough think of it like this, you get a digital camera and not just a scanner.

The only thing I use my film scanner for nowadays is for digital contact sheets, just it scan while I do something else. For the serious scans to post edit I set up my Nikon Z7. Which to be honest is just about the only thing I use it for, but I'm not going back to the bad old days of medium format scanners that took an age to scan and at a quality below what I can achieve now. So goodbye Nikon 9000, Plustek 120, Minolta Multi Pro, and Epson V700.

I think of it the other way round. I like digital photography, and my end product is a digital file. However, I like to get there with entirely analog equipment because I like the ergonomics of film cameras, their simplicity, I like exposing, developing and scanning film, and I like how film looks when scanned well.

As such, I have absolutely 0 reasons to buy an overpriced, bulky portable computer, like a Z7 and its bulky overpriced lenses (and I speak as a Nikon fan of 25+ years).

If I owned a DSLR, I would use it take pictures, not for scanning. Spending 4000$+ on DSLR gadgets specifically to 'scan' film when there are better, cheaper methods is not wise imho. Of course, it makes sense to try DSLR scanning if one already has a DSLR kicking around.

The end result from a correctly used, correctly setup and CLA'd dedicated film scanner like a Coolscan 9000ED is demonstrably better than 99% of most DSLR based setups. The advantages of a CCD line sensors wrt a Bayer and especially an Xtrans sensor are well known. Not to mention topics like reproducibility, real estate used (a medium format scanner is way more compact than a repro stand, and can be moved around with no recalibration needed) and capability of using ICE on C41 film, which is extremely effective on scratches and dust.

In fairness, a DSLR setup will perhaps be less noisy than a scanner in operation, and if setup correctly to give repeatable results (big, huge 'if') it will be faster in terms of capture time, in case one has a lot of frames to scan.

For me, these are non advantages, as I can tolerate the noise of my medium format scanner, and I only scan to full resolution the keepers in each roll, which are less than 10-15% of the roll if I'm lucky IME.

 

[aparat]

I think of it the other way round. I like digital photography, and my end product is a digital file. However, I like to get there with entirely analog equipment because I like the ergonomics of film cameras, their simplicity, I like exposing, developing and scanning film, and I like how film looks when scanned well.

As such, I have absolutely 0 reasons to buy an overpriced, bulky portable computer, like a Z7 and its bulky overpriced lenses (and I speak as a Nikon fan of 25+ years).

If I owned a DSLR, I would use it take pictures, not for scanning. Spending 4000$+ on DSLR gadgets specifically to 'scan' film when there are better, cheaper methods is not wise imho. Of course, it makes sense to try DSLR scanning if one already has a DSLR kicking around.

The end result from a correctly used, correctly setup and CLA'd dedicated film scanner like a Coolscan 9000ED is demonstrably better than 99% of most DSLR based setups. The advantages of a CCD line sensors wrt a Bayer and especially an Xtrans sensor are well known. Not to mention topics like reproducibility, real estate used (a medium format scanner is way more compact than a repro stand, and can be moved around with no recalibration needed) and capability of using ICE on C41 film, which is extremely effective on scratches and dust.

In fairness, a DSLR setup will perhaps be less noisy than a scanner in operation, and if setup correctly to give repeatable results (big, huge 'if') it will be faster in terms of capture time, in case one has a lot of frames to scan.

For me, these are non advantages, as I can tolerate the noise of my medium format scanner, and I only scan to full resolution the keepers in each roll, which are less than 10-15% of the roll if I'm lucky IME.

I agree completely with this. I used to own the 9000ED, along with a custom glass holder, and regret selling it. It was such a capable scanner! When I sold it, I was hoping Nikon would make another, better model. Oh well.

I am currently scanning negatives with my phone (Samsung A53), converting with Vuescan, and I am really impressed with the results. No, they're not good enough for nice digital prints, but great for sharing online.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I have been using the Plustek 7600i for several years. I just upgraded the Silverfast software to ver. 9. I wish I had one of the last Nikon 35mm scanners to compare, but they are getting old and cost serious $$s now. Silverfast 9 does not have a Fuji Acros scan profile, but the Tri-X 400 neu profile works well. Here is an example from E. 66th Street, Shreveport, Louisiana (25mm Color-Skopar lens):

 

[Brad Deputy]

Another vote for the Plustek 8200 AI. Takes time to learn Silverfast but I'm proficient enough I don't bother with Photoshop or LR. No monthly fees.

Over 2 years now I've scanned over 4000 negatives and slides, of all types and age, back to 1952. Early Ektachrome that went red, I was able to flatten the color and bring out blues and greens I couldn't see before. Kodachromes I various states of decay, colors can be cleaned up, and the cyan cast is no issue at all with the included profile. Silverfast AI is the only version I'd use, I use the AI specific features every time (white balance with the neutral pipette is nothing short of magic).

 

[Lew_B]

Thanks for all the replies!
Very helpful!
Lew (OP)

 

[tahomaphoto]

I agree completely with this. I used to own the 9000ED, along with a custom glass holder, and regret selling it. It was such a capable scanner! When I sold it, I was hoping Nikon would make another, better model. Oh well.

I am currently scanning negatives with my phone (Samsung A53), converting with Vuescan, and I am really impressed with the results. No, they're not good enough for nice digital prints, but great for sharing online.

I really like using my Plustek OpticFilm 120. However, if I need to scan negatives or slides away from home (visiting family on the opposite coast, for example), using a dSLR to scan there is a good second best for me.

 

[Overrank]

So, about the only “modern” thing available in a true film scanner seems to be the Plustek 8200. I read what few reviews I find, and I can’t tell if it is decent, or just “what’s available”…. Hard to tell if the reviewers know what they’re doing, or are just amateurs trying to scan in memories, like vacation photos…..(nothing wrong with that, but I’m trying to recover my early years of semi-pro photography, so am looking for opinions from people who truly understand image quality).

So, I’m just looking for opinions/guidance specifically on the Plustek 8200….. From what I can gather, it may not be able to pull as much shadow out of chromes as the LS-2000 used to (I’m a chronic underexposer of chromes…..I like that “look”). Resolution-wise, should be similar to the Nikon (I know Plustek’s 7200 ppi is BS, but 3600 is fine). Any real-world experiences with Plustek would be greatly appreciated!

Lew

I‘ve used a Plustek 8200Ai to scan thousands of negatives and slides, 135 and (with third party adapters) 110, 126 and APS. I am very impressed with both the output and the build quality of the scanner ( it has the ‘heft’ of a proper piece of machinery ). I have recently replaced it with a second-hand CoolScan V, really for the auto feed (but also because I‘ve seen lots of reviews saying the CoolScan is the best). The CoolScan scans are better, but how much of that is down to my increased experience I don’t know. There are other Plustek scanners available now with auto feed and iSRD (Digital ICE) like the 135i, and if I was buying a new (I.e. not second hand) scanner now I would probably get one of those.

 

[snusmumriken]

I‘d like to add that I once contacted Plustek tech support to ask a question about a very slight skew in some scanned images. I was having trouble adjusting/cropping the scan in Silverfast to remove the skew. I think the skew is a result of the could-be-better film holder. I’ve had to make a similar adjustment to some negatives scanned on the V700. Anyway, the Plustek test support guy was very helpful and walked me through the solution in Silverfast. Probably one of the better tech support experiences I’ve had.

This is something that camera scanning would likely avoid. I haven’t seen any resulting sharpness or scan quality issues, other than a need to adjust the prescan frame in Silverfast before the final scan.

I second the comment about the “could be better” film holder. There’s quite a lot of play in the notch that registers each negative in the light path. It can take 2 or 3 pre-scans to get a negative centred so that you can adjust the scan area to match.

In most other respects I find the scanner excellent for the money. I don’t actually use the highest resolution it is capable of because of the huge file sizes for a marginal gain in image clarity on-screen.

I found basic Plustek software to be awful, but Silverfast was included with my purchase. SilverFast is pretty good, though prone to crashing on my Mac. Its built-in scan profiles for different b/w emulsions are useful. Comparing scans done on the Plustek with scans of the same negative made previously on an Epson 5400LX(?) belonging to someone else I’d say the Epson had the edge, but it’s a close thing.

 

[Helge]

Anyone who would hazard a compare between PrimeFilm XA Plus and Plustek i8200?

While I am a fan of camera scanning it would be nice to have something smaller and in one piece, for when out and about.

The XA looks like it definitely has the highest resolution. But not by that much. Around a real world 800 - 1000 dpi advantage.
Batch scanning is nice. But in many reviews that exact feature is criticized as being unreliable and often making it much harder (impossible?) to do single manually selected scans or “weird” formats.

I need to import the XA super to Denmark with the risk of having to pay all kinds of fees and taxes. But I’m willing to take the risk.
It will probably never significantly exceed the price of the overpriced Reflecta branded one in EU.

The i8200 is far simpler. And manual. But still has many fans, even in places (US mainly) where the XA is also available at a not very much higher price.

Which one to get, please?

 

[runswithsizzers]

@Lew_B, If you have not already done something, I will second the suggestion by @albada in post #2. The LS-2000 is paid for, and you already know how to use it. If the LS-2000 works, and if you still think it produces "very nice results" -- then you can get down to business scanning your film. If not, then you will have ruled that out as an option, and you can concentrate on finding a replacement.

BTW, I am another one of those "chronic underexposer of chromes." My first (and only), dedicated film scanner was a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900 from about 2010. That scanner was not very good for underexposed slides. Many of the shadow details that I could see when the slides were projected were mostly black in the scans. I know you don't want to hear it, but I recently re-scanned a few hundred slides with my digital camera that had previously been scanned with the Minolta, and shadow detail is much better from the camera-scans. Greater resolution and sharpness, too. Hopefully, the more recent (and more expensive) film scanners do not suffer from weak shadow detail like my old Minolta did. I will say this, the scans from Minolta Dimage do have a richness of color that is somewhat lacking from the camera scans. Not sure how much of that is due to the hardware, or how much may due to the scanning software (Vuescan).

Good luck to you, and I hope you will post some results.

 

[albireo]

Hopefully, the more recent (and more expensive) film scanners do not suffer from weak shadow detail like my old Minolta did.

My Minolta Scan Dual IV is awesome with slides. It's awesome for everything, actually, and really cheap: a good used copy can be found for 250 Euro. 3200 real DPI.

It's so good and so fast that, in spite of now owning a Nikon LS8000ED, I still use the Minolta Scan Dual for my 35mm black and white negatives. The Minolta is much faster than the Nikon, and I'm happy with 3200 real dpi as opposed to 4000 real dpi for most of my 35mm scanning tasks currently.

I should say the Nikon has the edge over the Minolta for very old and dusty/scratched negatives (which are 0.00001% of what I scan): the Nikon, unlike the Minolta Scan Dual, has an infrared channel and Nikonscan has almost miraculous ICE software. No such thing with the Scan Dual.

If one has access to a copy of Vuescan, and tends to scan modern, well preserved, dust-free negatives/positives, the Minolta Scan Dual IV is one of the best kept secrets in film scanning.

 

[koraks]

My Minolta Scan Dual IV is awesome

As is mine
I don't scan much anymore, but I dread the day that it'll die. No signs of it yet, fortunately! The power supply died some time ago, but a generic 24V SMPS unit seems to work fine as a replacement.

 

[runswithsizzers]

My Minolta Scan Dual IV is awesome with slides. It's awesome for everything, actually, and really cheap: a good used copy can be found for 250 Euro. 3200 real DPI.

It's so good and so fast that, in spite of now owning a Nikon LS8000ED, I still use the Minolta Scan Dual for my 35mm black and white negatives. The Minolta is much faster than the Nikon, and I'm happy with 3200 real dpi as opposed to 4000 real dpi for most of my 35mm scanning tasks currently.

I should say the Nikon has the edge over the Minolta for very old and dusty/scratched negatives (which are 0.00001% of what I scan): the Nikon, unlike the Minolta Scan Dual, has an infrared channel and Nikonscan has almost miraculous ICE software. No such thing with the Scan Dual.

If one has access to a copy of Vuescan, and tends to scan modern, well preserved, dust-free negatives/positives, the Minolta Scan Dual IV is one of the best kept secrets in film scanning.

As is mine
I don't scan much anymore, but I dread the day that it'll die. No signs of it yet, fortunately! The power supply died some time ago, but a generic 24V SMPS unit seems to work fine as a replacement.

Obviously, I should have: a. not underexposed my slides, or, b. held out for the more expensive model. Hindsight, and all that. My Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900 was pretty good for correcty exposed slides and for negative film. (But now that I have my camera-scanning rig dialed in, I am not going back.)

 

[albireo]

As is mine
I don't scan much anymore, but I dread the day that it'll die. No signs of it yet, fortunately! The power supply died some time ago, but a generic 24V SMPS unit seems to work fine as a replacement.

They don't die. They just need a mirror clean every now and then (trivial). I still have my old Scan Dual III which I bought new in the early 2000s as a teenager playing around with my (then new) F100, Astia, and Sensia slides (oh to be able to get back some those beautiful 'amateur' Fuji films). Works great. Those Scan Dual III go for peanuts, and if one is happy with ~2800 (real) dpi only, they are fantastic devices.

 

[koraks]

They don't die.

That's reassuring I purchased my IV new as well. Probably 2005-ish or so? I figure that at some point, the mechanics will start to play up. Grease will dry out and harden (although it still seems fine now), and capacitors will eventually die. It's a matter of time, but with a little bit of luck, it'll be a lot of time The major pain so far, and it's quite minor actually, has been to coax Windows into accepting the old driver. Still works, just requires circumventing the whole driver signing business.

Astia, and Sensia slides (oh to be able to get back some those beautiful 'amateur' Fuji films)

Yeah, those were nice. I shot a lot of Sensia in the day. It scanned great and I would sometimes get enlargements digitally made that way. In that sense, that time was pretty much a golden age - digital print services were already coming along and were quite affordable, while film was plentiful and dirt cheap (unsustainably so!) Ah well. Times change!

 

[Lew_B]

Anyone who would hazard a compare between PrimeFilm XA Plus and Plustek i8200?

While I am a fan of camera scanning it would be nice to have something smaller and in one piece, for when out and about.

The XA looks like it definitely has the highest resolution. But not by that much. Around a real world 800 - 1000 dpi advantage.
Batch scanning is nice. But in many reviews that exact feature is criticized as being unreliable and often making it much harder (impossible?) to do single manually selected scans or “weird” formats.

I need to import the XA super to Denmark with the risk of having to pay all kinds of fees and taxes. But I’m willing to take the risk.
It will probably never significantly exceed the price of the overpriced Reflecta branded one in EU.

The i8200 is far simpler. And manual. But still has many fans, even in places (US mainly) where the XA is also available at a not very much higher price.

Which one to get, please?

I don’t have either (yet), and I generally don’t place too much credibility on reviews, BUT, I did look extensively at both of these and ruled out the Pacific Images devices, due to negative reviews and general lack of reviews. For example, the XAplus has only 5 reviews on Amazon US with an average score of 2.2 out of 5, and on B&H Photo only 3 reviews with same average. By contrast, the Plustek 8200ai has 260 reviews with an average of 4.2 out of 5, and B&H has 201 reviews with an average of 4.1 out of 5. The 8200i has a 4.1 out of 5 rating on Amazon out of 667 reviews.

If I were you, and had to take a chance on importing something, I would not want to go “out on a limb” with a product that has very low volume of sales and negative reviews ( the XAplus), and risk ending up with an “expensive boat anchor” . I’d stick with something that has more and happier users (Plustek)!

I also don’t think that either vendor’s DPI claims should be looked at. I highly doubt that the Pacific Image can do anywhere near “10000dpi”…. Most of the Plustek feedback I got said the Plustek should be used at half the claimed DPI: 3600 instead of 7200. I think both are dealing with “empty magnification” at their peak rating…. Just creating extra unusable data to clog up hard drives, with no gain in real resolution.

Just my opinions!

By the way, looking at Reflekta here: https://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/reflecta/index.html , they appear to be re-badged Paciific Images scanners ( or vice-versa?) . The pictures are identical!

Update: yes they are the same: Pacific Image XA = Reflekta RPS 10M

 

[Lew_B]

@Lew_B, If you have not already done something, I will second the suggestion by @albada in post #2. The LS-2000 is paid for, and you already know how to use it. If the LS-2000 works, and if you still think it produces "very nice results" -- then you can get down to business scanning your film. If not, then you will have ruled that out as an option, and you can concentrate on finding a replacement

I would do that if it was easy, But the LS-2000 has a SCSI interface, and it is basically impossible to interface to any modern computer. I do have a Power Mac G3 tower (23 years old) that I used to run it on, which I may fire up at some point, but that’s probably not a good long term solution

 

[albada]

I would do that if it was easy, But the LS-2000 has a SCSI interface, and it is basically impossible to interface to any modern computer. I do have a Power Mac G3 tower (23 years old) that I used to run it on, which I may fire up at some point, but that’s probably not a good long term solution

You can still buy new SCSI cards for reasonable prices. Here's what Newegg offers: link

Mark