Scanning indecision

[xtolsniffer]

Dear all,
I'm a recent arrival here, I usually hang around in APUG. However, I thought I would come over and seek a bit of advice. I'm mostly a film user (range of Nikon 35mm plus an RB67) and I do all sorts, macro, landscape, portrait etc etc. I do use digital, a D700, though admittedly only when I have to as to be honest, it's a great tool, but I just don't enjoy it. I much prefer using film (Portra in a F100 and velvia in an F4, plus both in the RB67).

So here is the quandry. At the moment I scan the RB67 negatives/slides in an Epson V700. They come out just great and I can get them printed up online with a pro-lab at 12"x16" and over and they look fantastic. The 35mm scans to ne honest are a bit disappointing. I've spent a long time playing with settings and I just can't get the detail I want out of them with the V700 (no real surprises there). I would like to be able to scan them for online use and to upload for printing, and I've done a few test prints doing this and they're ok, just not as good as if I send the transparency/negative itself off for scanning and printing by the lab.

So I figure I have a range of options.
1. Keep using film and just send the ones off I like to a pro-lab to do the scanning and printing (I can get a lot scanned and printed for the cost of a new scanner)
2. Invest in a good second-hand scanner like a Nikon Coolscan LS40 (but there might be issues of operating system support)
3. Look at the newer generation Plustek or Reflecta scanners for 35mm and keep the Epson V700 for medium format.

I've been going round in circles on this, what do you think?

 

[mfphotography]

Here's what I do: batch scan my 35mm negs on a Canon 9000F (in my case, 6 at a time, on the scanner glass, under a piece of ANR glass). These are sufficient for web use.

For the really nice 'keeper' frames that I would like to print, I scan again using a Plustek 8100 @ 7200 dpi, multiexposure, etc. Scanning 36 images on the Plustek is too tiresome (no automation at all), but choosing the 2-3 frames per roll that I want to print and then just scanning those is very manageable. The images are easily sufficient for 13" wide prints (the limit of my Epson R3000...could probably go bigger, too).

For medium format, the 9000F at 3600dpi is enough for excellent enlargements.

Unfortunately, flatbeds stink for 35mm.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Another option: Get a bellows with slide copy adapters for your Nikon D700. Put a macro lens (or good enlarger lens) on it and "copy" your slide onto the D700. With the D800 that setup beats the dedicated Canon FS4000 scanner and comes close to my drum scanner as far as resolution. It's better than the drum as far as dynamic range goes. I imagine the D700 should also work well in this setup. All of that should cost just a few hundred bucks (and possibly much less). Keep the flatbed for the medium format film.

Edit: I just noticed you also use Portra. Using the DSLR to copy color negative does work, but I have had much easier results with slide and B&W negs.

 

[rbultman]

Sounds like the Epson works well with the RB67 due to the larger negative size. You could:
1) Stop using the 35mm and just use the RB67. You won't be disappointed any more and it will build upper body strength. If portability is a concern, consider getting a 645, 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 rangefinder for $500-$2000. Or, get a Yashica MAT-124G for $200, 6x6 deliciousness.
2) If you are happy with the scans you get with the V700 and MF film, consider getting a dedicated 35mm film scanner. This should give better quality at <1/4 the price of a new Plustec 120 scanner. Maybe that is what you meant, get a 35mm and not a 120.

-Rob

 

[OzJohn]

Another option: Get a bellows with slide copy adapters for your Nikon D700. Put a macro lens (or good enlarger lens) on it and "copy" your slide onto the D700. With the D800 that setup beats the dedicated Canon FS4000 scanner and comes close to my drum scanner as far as resolution.

I've not tried this because I have a Nikon 35mm scanner but if it should ever fail I think I might go down this path of copying with an FX format DSLR because I once printed (to 12x16) a couple of files made this way by someone else using a D300s and the results floored me to be honest - not quite as good as the scanner can do but just so much better that I imagined you could get ever get with a DX format camera. OzJohn

 

[xtolsniffer]

Thanks for the interesting comments and suggestions. Funnily enough the idea of using my D700 to copy slides just occurred to me last night. I have pretty much everything I need - a D700, Capture NX2, a Nikkor 105mm macro, copy stand and a light box. I have seen some fairly negetaive reviews of this process on the web, but I always love the idea of not spending money when I don't have to. I also have a sign above my desk that says 'You don't need more technology, you need more creativity to use the technology you already have better'.

I might as well try it!

 

[CGW]

There's a pile of DIY recipes for DSLR scanning online. Just visit Google. I'm unhappy that Nikon appears uninterested in supporting their legacy scanners, especially the late great Coolscan 8000+9000 models. The new, somewhat buggy(?) and pricey Plustek OpticFilm 120 is really about it as far as Coolscan 8000/9000 replacements go. I'm waiting for a Kickstarter project to roll-out an improved version of those gawdawful T-mount zoom slider copier thingies for DSLRs that can handle 35mm and 120 film materials.

 

[chuck94022]

I have used my D800 with a macro (Tamron 90mm, sharp as a tack). It is a good solution.

But, I just don't like introducing a Bayer filter and the resulting interpolation into the workflow. My gut tells me that you will lose, at least partially, the film rendition in the process. Every time I do this with 35mm I have to ask myself why I didn't just take the D800 on the shoot.

A scanner is the best of the digital tools for capturing the full color rendition of the scene, due to the fact that it records the full color information at each pixel.

A dedicated film scanner for 35mm is probably your best bet, or just using the flatbed for rough scans, nd taking your best shots to a professional scanning service (drum or hasselblad scan, for example) for those images you want to digitally print large.

The flatbed is fine for web images, but for highest quality you should read the information on this forum regarding tuning the focus with things like the betterscanning holder.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I have spent a lot of time trying to optimise the V700 to get the best out if it. For what it's worth, these are my observations:

For 6x7 transparencies, I've done side by side comparisons for 12"x16" prints scanned by me and uploaded to a pro-lab with those scanned and printed by the pro-lab and I can see no real differences at normal viewing distances. There might be a very slight difference close-up but it's marginal. Conclusion: The V700 gives me all the resolution for 6x7 that I need.

For 35mm I've done the same. Scanned the transparency and uploaded to a pro-lab and got them to scan and print, again to 12"x16". There is a very real difference, the pro-lab version is way better. However, this is only noticable in a side-by-side comparison. If you had the self-scanned and pro-lab printed one on your wall, it would be good, not totally perfect, but good. To be fair, a 12"x16" print from 35mm is really pushing it anyway.

My other observations are:

Epson software vs silverfast - makes no difference. Silverfast is more flexible to get what you want, but the final scan with both once you've tweaked them is the same.

Ice - on quality setting there is a very slight loss of sharpness, but this is very very small, and the effort it saves later in getting rid of dust spots is well worth it.

6400 vs 3200 dpi - I've compared 6400 dpi which I've down sampled to 3200 with a direct 3200 dpi scan and there is no difference at all. 3200 scans are much faster.

Holder-height - does have an effect. Mine seem to be best at the '+' setting. However, getting the transparency strip in right makes a big difference too. Scan it once, take it out, put it back and scans can be very different in sharpness. I may try the anti-newton glass insert from betterscanning.com to be more consistent. This is not an issue with mounted 35mm transparencies.

Scans need quite a lot of unsharp mask afterwards, more than I would normally feel comfortable with. In Cpature NX2, about a 70% intensity, 5% radius and 0% threshold seems about right. Looks bad on screen but prints well (when uploaded to the lab anyway, I don't do inkjets).


I may spend a bit of time with the V700 before looking to other options, at least until I can find some good sample images with the Plustek for 35mm.

 

[Felinik]

Anyone who uses the Reflecta RPS 7200 Pro?

I am in the same situation as the OP, though I already have an Epson v500, and apart from the process being way to cumbersome for scanning loads of negatives, I'm not fully convinced by the quality of the 35mm scans, I miss that "deep" and "sharpness" that of course should be able to get on scanned negatives (I've seen test scans with dedicated 35mm scanners).

Anyone?



Cheers
JF Felinik

 

[RattyMouse]

I have spent a lot of time trying to optimise the V700 to get the best out if it. For what it's worth, these are my observations:

For 6x7 transparencies, I've done side by side comparisons for 12"x16" prints scanned by me and uploaded to a pro-lab with those scanned and printed by the pro-lab and I can see no real differences at normal viewing distances. There might be a very slight difference close-up but it's marginal. Conclusion: The V700 gives me all the resolution for 6x7 that I need.

Interesting. Have you ever compared an optical print from the negative vs a print from a scan? I am interested in learning if there is any loss with a 6 x 7 negative printing digitally this way.

Thanks,

 

[xtolsniffer]

I'm not sure that's actually a realistic thing to do. I optically print my black and white negatives in my own darkroom, while for colour work I either scan and upload to a pro-lab or get them to scan and then print, I don't actually know of any labs who still print colour optically. The lab I tend to use (peak imaging) I think scans them on Durst machine that then prints the image via an RGB lazer at 254 dpi onto photographic paper. I assume the scan resolution is matched to the final output size. I have no complaints at all about the quality, I've had 35mm printed at up to 12"x16" and it's pretty good I have to say.

 

[Felinik]

I ordered a Reflecta RPS 7200 Pro / Pacific Image 7250pro3 some minutes ago, I have about 40-50 35mm rolls cut in 6 frames, and about a dozen of rolls developed this week that are not yet cut, so I can't wait for it to arrive! I've been sitting here during the last week catching up on my scanning with my v500, but the process kills me, ||: load 2x6 frames, adjust, set to scan :|| ...

From the start my idea was to get the new Plustek Opticfilm 120, but since I don't shoot MF this felt like a more sensible decision. Should I shoot MF I can scan those negs in my v500, and if I'm not happy with that result, get the frames I need to get better scans of scanned somewhere on a drumscanner or something.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I was looking at that scanner as well, let me know how it works out! In the meantime I think I'm going to spend a day or so trying to squeeze the most out of my V700 to see how far I can push it for 35mm.

 

[Felinik]

It's the only one there is that can scan entire rolls automatically, as long as I get the negs into the computer without hassle, even if the scans are not 100%, I can always go back to specific frames afterwards and scan individually more perfect manually if needed.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Well, after a day scanning I'm pretty much where I was to start with. My settings on the V700 that work best are putting all the tabs to the '+' position, scanning at 3200 ppi with no ice. The silverfast 'auto sharpen' works really well, better than me not using any sharpen and then using USM in photoshop/Capture NX2, but then I'm no image processing expert.

Picture below is a full frame 35mm image from an uncut strip of Velvia.



And from a small section.



Not being able to compare them with any other scanners, it's hard to say how good they are, but overall I amy quite impressed what you can squeeze out of 35mm with a V700.

 

[Les Sarile]

Details comparisons between the Cooslcan 5000 and the Epson V500 and V700 below - with and without ICE and the Epson at various resolution settings. This was done using the same frame of Fuji Velvia (original ISO50). No sharpening. Very low compression used to maintain detail but big files.

Click for full file -> Coolscan 5000

Click for full file -> Epson V500

Click for full file -> Epson V700

Of course these were taken in the most ideal conditions - tripod, best aperture, best lens, target has sufficient detail to show the difference. Less then ideal conditions will result in less difference.

Here is a snapshot using Fuji 100 although the differences are still noticeable, they are not as much as in the examples above. Again, huge file.

Click for full file -> Fuji 100 - various scanners

For me, the biggest advantages of the Coolscans is their considerable speed. Not only per actual single frame scan, but fully automatic scans - no pre or post adjustment of any kind. Automatic color results using Nikonscan has no equal. I've scanned over 13,000 frames with my Coolscan 5000, over 4,000 frames with my Coolscan 9000 and thousands more using the Epsons, Canons, mini labs and a few Imacon 949 8000dpi scans but haven't tried a real drum scanner.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Very interesting scans Les. Clearly the Coolscan is way better than the Epsons on a test target. The question is of course how much that translates to normal images. The one below, while the differences are there, they are less obvious.

 

[Les Sarile]

I also had the Coolscan 5000 for my 35mm and used the Epson V700 for MF initially but if you have a chance to work with both you will know the huge difference in workflow between the two. Finally got the Coolscan 9000 and had to rescan all my previous MF film because the results are just so different. But even in between the 5000 and the 9000, the differences can be obvious particularly in the handling of Kodachrome and ICE. The 9000's light source and ICE is nothing short of magical particularly on a badly scratched example shown below.

Click for full file -> Coolscan 5000 & 9000 ICE

To your point, at what screen or print size will you actually see the difference.

 

[Felinik]

ICE ICE Baby! Amazing!!!

 

[rbultman]

Anyone have a similar comparison between an LS-8000 and a drum scan?

 

[glhs116]

How about a Coolscan 9000 and a Howtek 4500 drum scanner? You can download full res versions of both. In my opinion, the drum was better but the Coolscan was very very close.


Medium Zekreet Velvia The Burning Bush Drum Scan | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


Sam

 

[Les Sarile]

Sam, The Coolscan original size version is only 3168 x 2375 while the Howtek is 6303 x 4728?

The Howtek result is also far grittier looking then Velvia 50 actually is. This is inline with what I have previously gotten from Howtek scans of Fuji Velvia 50.

 

[glhs116]

Yeah, the Coolscan scan was at 2000dpi which is usually enough for me in medium format scans even for largish prints because the Coolscan is so sharp and detailed. You can see some 4000dpi Velvia scans in the Coolscan set if you look for the 35mm shots.

Collection: By Scanner

Sam

 

[xtolsniffer]

That effect of the ICE really is amazing!

I guess what it comes down to is how big you want the enlargements to be. I don't know what technology is used to generate my current prints from slides, I think one lab uses a Durst (Theta 76?) machine, the other is a Notitsu 3704HD. I've had 12"x16" made from 35mm fuji velvia from both, and the results are amazing. On the other hand, I'm sure that my Epson V700 is fine for the web and for 5"x7" from 35mm, possibly even 10"x8". The only thing is it takes A LOT of fiddling to get it right!