Scanner selection for medium format and 35mm

Richard Man said:

I have never heard of anyone who has a broken Nikon and cannot get it repaired. This is one of those "could happen" stories and just don't have much supporting data. Electronics don't die that easily. The motor may but even there. The motor is really being taxed that much.

Click to expand...

That differs from what I've read online about the scanners, but I don't personally have one or know anyone who does. I do seem to see a decent number of these scanners showing up on ebay that have one issue or another, and are being sold "as is." However, most are listed as being in working condition. If they are truly that hardy, that is comforting as I would love to acquire one.

Kino said:

It came bundled in a lite version for my Epson 4990, but I preferred the native Epson Scan program in totally manual mode.

I didn't particularly hate the program, I just prefer to make my adjustments without automatic "assumptions"...

Click to expand...

I"m talking about SilverFast SE, which is the professional version of that software that comes with the Plustek Optic Film 120 scanner. On its own that version of SilverFast is very expensive, which is criminal considering how awful the software is.

brent8927 said:

I think the problem is you can't find parts for the Coolscans anymore, so if a critical part (like the motherboard/logic board, or whatever it's called) goes bad, you're not going to be able to fix it without buying a unit to salvage from. But, Nikon typically builds things well, so hopefully it's unlikely. But it would be the main thing I would worry about--spending $2000-$3000 (seems to be the rate for the 9000's, which are a little newer) for a scanner, only for it to turn into a large paperweight.

Click to expand...

I suggest to anybody possessing a dedicated film scanner to buy a UPS (uninterruptible power supply) which normally does a great job in protecting the computer from electric network anomalies that might damage it. This protection is actually the main reason to use them. As an alternative, a good stabilizer or a good "main conditioner" or how are they called. Your electricity bill will raise slightly but your peace of mind will benefit greatly.

I suggest using a DSLR for 35mm film scans. Get a good macro lens, a steady tripod, and a light board (or make one) and shot it, one at a time. You get much better results in less time than messing around with a flatbed scanner. Dedicated film scanners are nice, but if you already have a decent DSLR, then that's the way to go. It'll take you a while to figure out a good setup and workflow, but once you've got all of the details figured out, it goes pretty quickly and the results are as good or better as any other method out there.

You can also scan 120 and larger film that way, but once you start to go past 35mm film, other methods start to become more attractive again. You can scan 120 film either as one shot from your DSLR (which sacrifices some resolution, but is still as good as whatever your DSLR is capable of), or you can stitch them together from multiple shots (which can be a bit of a pain sometimes). By the time you hit 4x5 sheet film, scanning with a DSLR is just not worth it. By then, a flatbed scanner made for film becomes the way to go. That will get you good enough results for most things like posting on the internet and prints up to around 20x16. If you need to print something even larger than that, you might consider a drum scan. Though the price and hassle of those machines make them not worth owning, in my opinion. For the rare circumstances where a drum scan is actually necessary, I'd rather just send them out to have them professionally done.

120 film is kind of in that gray area. It's large enough to do on a flatbed scanner, yet you won't get optimal results that way. It's small enough to do with a DSLR, though it can be a real pain to setup. You can buy a dedicated film scanner for it, but those are expensive and don't offer a huge improvement in time and hassle over a DSLR or in quality over a good flatbed. I guess the good news is that any of those methods will work well enough for most circumstances. In any case, the quality of the scan comes more down to your process than to the equipment, so expect it to take several attempts to figure out all of the little tricks involved at getting the most out of your equipment, whichever equipment you use.

Hi I'm thinking of buying Epsom perfection 370 for scaning my 35 mm film what's your opinion

Mrtrik71 said:

Hi I'm thinking of buying Epsom perfection 370 for scaning my 35 mm film what's your opinion

Click to expand...

For scanning 35mm, I don't think there's any reason to not get a dedicated film scanner--they typically aren't that expensive (particularly if you buy used), and flatbeds really are not going to compare. As negatives get larger, that is where you tend to see better results from the flatbed, particularly if not printing large.

I did get decent results from scanning 35mm with my V700, but the V700 is a "pro" grade (if such a thing really exists) flatbed scanner and will give much better results than the 370. I really bought my scanner for medium format scanning and just figured I'd try scanning my favorite 20 or so 35mm shots. 95% of my negatives are MF. If I shot only 35mm I'd get a dedicated 35mm film scanner in a heartbeat. I'd still really like a dedicated MF scanner...

I'd like to add for others, that there is in fact a guy who services Nikon Coolscans. I don't know his e-mail/contact, but his ebay username is nikon_coolscan, and from the few back and forth messages we sent, it sounds like he really knows what he's doing. He refurbishes a lot of these scanners too. If I can find a used 8000 for under $1000, or a 9000 for not that much more, I think I will take the plunge and try out those scanners.

While I feel I get very nice results with my V700, I will have always wondered (and will keep wondering) if I could get better results with a Coolscan. If there's anyone out there who is willing, I'd love to mail someone a few negatives to scan so that I can see if I will actually notice any difference in the images I take.

RattyMouse said:

I"m talking about SilverFast SE, which is the professional version of that software that comes with the Plustek Optic Film 120 scanner. On its own that version of SilverFast is very expensive, which is criminal considering how awful the software is.

Click to expand...

I also started with Silverfast, as it came bundled with my plustek scanner. I just found it overly complicated and didnt work that well. Vuecan costs something like 60 pounds, and it is super simple to use, and works really well. Personally I do absolutely minimal corrections with the scanning software and do everything in darktable so Vuescan works really well for me.

Thanks so much for all the good advice guys. It sounds like there are a lot of good options, and I just need to stop worrying, pick one, get shooting and scanning. I actually do my printing in the darkroom and scanning is just for digitising for my computer and web so maybe I just just get a relatively cheap flatbed for medium format and keep my film scanner for my 35mm.

The cheap Nikon may not be a reality anyway, the seller hasn't got back to me.....

brent8927 said:

For scanning 35mm, I don't think there's any reason to not get a dedicated film scanner--they typically aren't that expensive (particularly if you buy used), and flatbeds really are not going to compare. As negatives get larger, that is where you tend to see better results from the flatbed, particularly if not printing large.

Click to expand...

Seconded, I got a plustek 7500 for about $150 on ebay and am really pleased with the results.

jim10219 said:

I suggest using a DSLR for 35mm film scans. Get a good macro lens, a steady tripod, and a light board

Click to expand...

I have heard of people getting really good results with this. I tried myself but it wasnt great, and the thing that put me off the most was the faff in setting it all up! Unfortunately I am in a relatively small flat so I cant have a tripod and light table set up permanently.

Here is what I use.

For 35mm I have a Canon FS4000us. It is a very good to excellent scanner, pretty much the closest thing you can get to Nikon quality scans without spending a lot of money. You can often find them on ebay for about $150, sometimes less, sometimes more. However, if you get one from ebay be sure it includes the film holder and slide holder because replacement holders are not available from Canon. The main disadvantage of the Canon FS4000us is that it is slow compared to the Nikon. It has two interfaces, USB (regular USB, not the much faster USB 2), which is very slow, and SCSI, which is not as slow but still not very fast.

For medium format and larger I use an Epson V750. In fact, I am using it to scan some glass plate negatives as I write this. I improvised the "holders" for the plates, basically some coins stacked to get the right spacing off the glass. These glass plates contain VERY old and priceless images of my wife's family members. Some of them have never been seen as positive images.

I also have a Leafscan 45, but I have not used it much.

A word of caution about the impending decision...

• Many film scanners are NO LONGER current products, and there are not newer products being offered. Nikon, for example, is out of the film scanner business
• Older scanners may no longer have available driver software compatible with current Operating Systems that come preinstalled on modern PCs...MAKE SURE you can get scanner drivers which suit your Operating System BEFORE YOU BUY, or you may have an expensive but useless tool.

Some years ago, I bought a nearly new Canon Lide 20 scanner but had not tried to set it up for use with my Windows 7 laptop. I could not find a driver for that scanner that worked in Windows 7 32-bit. Ultimately I ended up loading a scanner app which would function in spite of the fact that no WIA driver was available...it could use TWAIN driver instead. If I was trying to use app that required WIA driver, I would still be unable to use that scanner today!

wiltw said:

A word of caution about the impending decision...

• Many film scanners are NO LONGER current products, and there are not newer products being offered. Nikon, for example, is out of the film scanner business
• Older scanners may no longer have available driver software compatible with current Operating Systems that come preinstalled on modern PCs...MAKE SURE you can get scanner drivers which suit your Operating System BEFORE YOU BUY, or you may have an expensive but useless tool.

Some years ago, I bought a nearly new Canon Lide 20 scanner but had not tried to set it up for use with my Windows 7 laptop. I could not find a driver for that scanner that worked in Windows 7 32-bit. Ultimately I ended up loading a scanner app which would function in spite of the fact that no WIA driver was available...it could use TWAIN driver instead. If I was trying to use app that required WIA driver, I would still be unable to use that scanner today!

Click to expand...

Did you have a look at VueScan, it looks like they support the Canon Lide 20 scanner, so you could still use it
( VueScan is a great piece of software when companies pull there support for scanners )

brent8927 said:

While I feel I get very nice results with my V700, I will have always wondered (and will keep wondering) if I could get better results with a Coolscan. If there's anyone out there who is willing, I'd love to mail someone a few negatives to scan so that I can see if I will actually notice any difference in the images I take.

Click to expand...

If you are happy with the results, I would suggest that you don't compare it.

Whether or not you will actually notice a difference will depend on a lot of factors. In terms of actual detail resolved - if you use good film, good equipment, good technique and the subject matter has enough actual distinguishable data, then of course you will. The examples below show the same frame of Fuji Velvia 50 - taken in controlled setting, scanned with the Epson V500, V700 and Coolscan.

Full size Epson V500 -> http://www.fototime.com/33269E445D10043/orig.jpg

Fullsize Epson V700 -> http://www.fototime.com/11F59FA46FF9497/orig.jpg

Fullsize Coolscan -> http://www.fototime.com/02BB797801DCA89/orig.jpg


If you really want to see if your scanners is resolving all the details captured on your frame of film, you can invest in something like a 40X microscope/loupe. What you can visually see with this the Coolscan can resolve.



This came in handy as I scanned some slides from a pro - 70's & 80's Kodachrome, and he was unhappy with them because they were not critically focused. I proved to him it was his film that was not focused and not the Coolscan's fault.

BTW, the details realized by the scans above - in this case, are not the limits of the film but the scanners.

Of the tens of thousands of various frames of films that I have scanned, detail/sharpness is great but for the most part you can apply the amount of sharpening you need for the purpose - print or post. However, color and contrast can take far more time to adjust in post if the scan doesn't get it right or at least get you in the ballpark. And this is really where Coolscan+Nikonscan truly shines compared to all the other scanning methods (hardware/software) I have tried. For instance the differences in some cases can be is so vast that you would not even think they are the same frame of film.

This one using Kodak Ektar 100 with the Coolscan and Epson V700


This one of Kodak Gold 100 with the Coolscan and mini-lab Noritsu


I have many results from all other scanners compared to the Coolscan+Nikonscan but these extreme differences don't happen too often as most discrepancies are more subtle.