Which scanner would be best for me?

TortoiseAvenger · Aug 20, 2015

Hello y'all:

I am looking to get back into film. I plan to primarily shoot Medium Format B&W. I might occasionally do color.

I'm mostly looking at the EPSON v series scanners, although I'd entertain other options if someone has a recommendation. Specifically, I'm entertaining the v600 and v800.

My main question is: Will I notice enough of a difference to merit the price?

The v600 seems to be able to handle two strips of MF film, the v800 only one. The Dmax of the v600 is 3.4, the v800 is 4. Would I notice this in B&W though? Would I even notice it, practically, with color? The v800 is noticeably faster, but that alone doesn't make it worth the extra hundreds of dollars.

I plan on taking my 6x6 negs and blowing up to 24"x24". Occasionally more maybe, but rarely.

What else should I consider?

Thank you for your time!

pschwart · Aug 20, 2015

Consider a dedicated film scanner if you plan on regularly printing 24x24.

Les Sarile · Aug 20, 2015

I would recommend the V8XX/V7XX over the V600/V500. I would also recommend that you try to get some of your own film to scan with these - or buy one with a good money back guarantee, so you can see the results firsthand instead of relying on reviews.

pschwart · Aug 20, 2015

and plan on acquiring a glass film holder if you want sharp images. Even dedicated scanners like the Nikon 9000 need glass for edge-to-edge sharpness.

lenny · Aug 21, 2015

You have two choices: a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner. Howtek 4500's go for about $1500 these days. I like drum scanners, have one of my own, and scan professionally. There's my bias. The Epson's should not be in contention. The DMax values you quote are totally bogus...

pschwart · Aug 21, 2015

I have a Nikon 9000 and I'd probably upgrade to a drum scanner if I planned on regularly printing 24x24.

Alan Klein · Aug 23, 2015

Since you don't plan on doing too many blowups, I'd buy the cheaper V600 for smaller prints and internet use and buy drum scans from outside lab for the 24x24" prints. I use a V600 on my RB67 6x7 work and you can check the results on my Flickr page. I have to admit though the V700 work I've seen seems better than the V600 but the cost is substantially hgher. Note that the V600 only handles one strip of 120 film - (3) 6x7's can be scanned at one time. There aren't two. You may be looking at the 35mm film holder rather than the 120 holder.

I only started shooting BW film (Tmax 100) so there are only two shots.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=55760757@N05&sort=date-taken-desc&tags=tmax100&view_all=1

Here's a wider range of 120 format color slide and negative film scans.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625476289859
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157626597775701
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625602231872

pschwart · Aug 23, 2015

Alan Klein said:
Since you don't plan on doing too many blowups, I'd buy the cheaper V600 for smaller prints and internet use and buy drum scans from outside lab for the 24x24" prints. I use a V600 on my RB67 6x7 work and you can check the results on my Flickr page. I have to admit though the V700 work I've seen seems better than the V600 but the cost is substantially hgher. Note that the V600 only handles one strip of 120 film - (3) 6x7's can be scanned at one time. There aren't two. You may be looking at the 35mm film holder rather than the 120 holder.

I only started shooting BW film (Tmax 100) so there are only two shots.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=55760757@N05&sort=date-taken-desc&tags=tmax100&view_all=1

Here's a wider range of 120 format color slide and negative film scans.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625476289859
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157626597775701
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625602231872

I think when the OP says "Occasionally more maybe, but rarely" he means he will sometimes print even larger than 24x24. If that's the case, then time to invest in a drum scanner, or pay for every scan you need. The printer required to output at these sizes will cost a lot more than a used drum scanner, so maybe the investment isn't an impediment. You can't skimp on hardware and expect to maintain image quality when printing large.

You have some nice images on flickr, but they aren't going to be useful for predicting the quality of a 24x24 scan from an Epson flatbed, or comparing to drum scanner output.

Alan Klein · Aug 23, 2015

Phil: Please re-read my post. I recommended he buy drum scanner scans for 24x24" prints . I never said he should use the V600 or any flat bed for these size prints. My post recommended these units for small prints and use on the internet, hence the web samples I directed him to review. So we're both on the same page.

pschwart · Aug 24, 2015

Alan Klein said:
Phil: Please re-read my post. I recommended he buy drum scanner scans for 24x24" prints . I never said he should use the V600 or any flat bed for these size prints. My post recommended these units for small prints and use on the internet, hence the web samples I directed him to review. So we're both on the same page.

Fair enough. Of course, if the OP buys a drum scanner for the large prints, he might as well use it for all his scans. A flatbed is more convenient, but I think even 11x14 and 16x20 prints will be visibly better from drum scans. I wouldn't be without a flatbed scanner -- I use mine all the time for scanning prints and making enlarged proof sheets. If Epson had given us a scanner that could actually be focused, I'd probably still use it for modest enlargements from 6x6 and 6x9.

hsandler · Aug 24, 2015

The V600 only does one strip of medium format; the V800 does two. I don't find the number of strips is significant, since you still have to load and lock down each strip individually. If you go for a flatbed, I highly recommend getting a glass carrier with adjustable height to get the most out of it, and to save yourself a lot of frustration loading curled film.

I have compared an Epson 4180, V500 and V700. There is a difference, but it doesn't jump out at you. As someone suggested, you really ought to try one to decide if it's acceptable. Find someone who owns one and uses a glass carrier and have them scan a good sharp wide dynamic range negative for you.

Lenny commented, among other things, on the DMAX numbers. I question how significant a DMAX rating over about 3.0 will be anyway if the OP is scanning black and white or colour negatives if well-exposed and developed; I would certainly say a high DMAX is very important with dense slide film, especially Velvia.

24x24 is a really big print for hybrid workflow with medium format and a flatbed. At best, you can expect maybe 2000 pixels per inch of negative real resolution in your scans. So at 24x24 for medium format, that's around 200 pixels per inch real resolution in the print. That might be enough if you don't look at the print from closer than a foot or so and have sharpened carefully in Photoshop to hide the resolution loss; maybe not. I don't print that big myself. You really have to print the test scan referred to above, using a good printing technique, and see.

Les Sarile · Aug 24, 2015

When talking about print size, it is good to understand that different paper textures have different ability to display details. Obviously fabric type have the least resolution and super glossy paper has the most. I have the Epson 7880 with various papers and know what these different textures translates to and can attest to the fact that the results are not like you would see on screen pixel peeping especially on larger monitors. Again it is one of those you have to make a personal judgement on.

lenny · Aug 25, 2015

The long and short of this is the photographer's intent. If you want to make a great print, then you have to use great tools and materials. There is a difference between a lower level lens and a Leica, Mamiya or Hasselblad lens (A few others qualify as well).

The first level of quality one can achieve is with a larger piece of film. 6x7cm is 5 times the size of 35mm. That's huge. 4x5 (13 times the area of 35mm) is downright fabulous. Of course, the film ought to be developed in something useful, like Xtol or Pyrocat HD, far superior to D-76, Rodinal, HC-110 and the rest... Good exposure is also important, and a basic knowledge of the zone system.

When choosing "the right scanner" there are pro tools and there are consumer tools. The consumer tools work fine if you want to take your family's snapshots and/or print at 8x10 image size. (I take family snapshots of my family and don't think there is anything wrong with this.) If you want to make a print with all the sensitivity of a Paul Caponigro, George Tice, or Frederick Evans print then you can't use consumer level tools.

I am only interested in the latter, and that's my bias. However, it is generally accepted that the consumer level scanners only work with a decent-sized piece of film. Most people would say that 35mm on an Epson is not a good fit of anything other than small prints, or someone who isn't that interested in the print quality. Everyone has their interest and there is no requirement that people love gorgeous prints.

Contrast also matters. If you want to make a print with contrast similar to Ansel Adams, it is far easier than the others I mentioned above. I'm not interested in that much contrast nor the deep, dark gloom of Brett Weston. I respect these folks, I just don't want to produce work like that. Once again, personal bias...

It's all about what you want to do...

marton · Aug 30, 2015

Flatbeds such as Epson are just fine if you simply want to upload to the web, but if you want quality prints, avoid them. They will disappoint on every level even if you happen to fork out for professional level scan software.

pschwart · Aug 30, 2015

marton said:
Flatbeds such as Epson are just fine if you simply want to upload to the web, but if you want quality prints, avoid them. They will disappoint on every level even if you happen to fork out for professional level scan software.

It's all about choosing an appropriate tool for the job. My personal experience: an Epson 7xx scan using 6x6 - 6x9 negatives and a glass film holder can make very nice 8x10s, and maybe 11x14s with care. An Epson 7xx/8xx is a useful tool; it will only disappoint if you try to push it beyond it's obvious limitations. It's not unreasonable to consider them for occasionally scanning LF negatives. It's clearly not the right choice for the OP.

GRHazelton · Sep 1, 2015

I have gotten decent scans with my Epson v700. I think its Achilles' heel is the film holders; the 120/220 holders are dreadful. After much disappointment I sprung for a BetterScanning.com 120 holder and a sized-to-fit piece of anti-Newton's rings glass. The glass holds the negative flat and the film holder allows for fine height adjustment to optimize focus. After some fiddly adjustments I can get uniform sharpness corner to corner from my Pentax 645n negatives. I'm not saying that the Epson is the equal of a drum or dedicated film scanner, but it is affordable. I can't comment on the later 500, 600, and 800 models.

That said I do wish that BetterScanning would develop a 35mm carrier. The Epson holders can't deal well with curled film, and the focus adjustment is far too coarse to be of real help.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 5, 2015

lenny said:
You have two choices: a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner. Howtek 4500's go for about $1500 these days. I like drum scanners, have one of my own, and scan professionally. There's my bias. The Epson's should not be in contention. The DMax values you quote are totally bogus...

I looked at drum scanners but the process is too laborious for me.
plus
I hate the idea of getting that fluid on my negatives.Who knows what that does to them long term?

lenny · Sep 6, 2015

Ralph, I see that you continue your campaign against drum scanners... You just can't help yourself...

Sure, mounting film on a drum is one more step. OTOH, wet mounting is a dream... It does to film what wetting a river rock does does to them. All the tones are brilliant and separated out for the scanner to see. There is a huge improvement in scanning , even on flatbeds. Most people who know what they are doing with a flatbed, or film scanner use some sort of fluid... Wet mounting also fills in a lot of scratches, makes some of the dust transparent? There is no need for IcE, etc.

Of course, then there's the drum scan. Exceedingly sharp, reproducing far more of the tonality than the flatbeds can. It has to do with using PMT's as sensors... it's a joy to print.... I would argue that film capture is better than digital capture any day, especially with a large piece of film. I would also argue that with a good scan digital printing is far more capable than darkroom prints, and offers many more paper choices.

There are plenty of people who know exactly what mounting fluid does to film. There has been plenty of research. All of it suggests that there is no harm whatsoever.

You are just casting aspersions, throwing crap on the waters. Why not lay off drum scanning for a bit and take on other outside-of-traditional-darkroom printing. Try convincing us that platinum prints are really just crappy for a change...

RalphLambrecht · Sep 6, 2015

lenny said:
Ralph, I see that you continue your campaign against drum scanners... You just can't help yourself...

Sure, mounting film on a drum is one more step. OTOH, wet mounting is a dream... It does to film what wetting a river rock does does to them. All the tones are brilliant and separated out for the scanner to see. There is a huge improvement in scanning , even on flatbeds. Most people who know what they are doing with a flatbed, or film scanner use some sort of fluid... Wet mounting also fills in a lot of scratches, makes some of the dust transparent? There is no need for IcE, etc.

Of course, then there's the drum scan. Exceedingly sharp, reproducing far more of the tonality than the flatbeds can. It has to do with using PMT's as sensors... it's a joy to print.... I would argue that film capture is better than digital capture any day, especially with a large piece of film. I would also argue that with a good scan digital printing is far more capable than darkroom prints, and offers many more paper choices.

There are plenty of people who know exactly what mounting fluid does to film. There has been plenty of research. All of it suggests that there is no harm whatsoever.

You are just casting aspersions, throwing crap on the waters. Why not lay off drum scanning for a bit and take on other outside-of-traditional-darkroom printing. Try convincing us that platinum prints are really just crappy for a change...

Well,It's not much of a campaign but you are right;just can't help myself.The pure thought of getting a fluid onto my negatives makes me curl inside.I'd prefer a drier method after putting all this effort into my negatives. river rocks can take more abuse than my negs;even though some seem bullet proof

pschwart · Sep 6, 2015

George in Georgia US said:
I'm not saying that the Epson is the equal of a drum or dedicated film scanner, but it is affordable. I can't comment on the later 500, 600, and 800 models.

Something to consider: you can get a new or used dedicated 35mm film scanner for less than the price of an Epson 7xx or 8xx scanner. You will probably get better 35mm scans (film holders will still be an issue), but a flatbed is a more versatile piece of hardware.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 6, 2015

pschwart said:
Something to consider: you can get a new or used dedicated 35mm film scanner for less than the price of an Epson 7xx or 8xx scanner. You will probably get better 35mm scans (film holders will still be an issue), but a flatbed is a more versatile piece of hardware.

Can you recommend a dedicated film scanner for 35mm and MF?

pschwart · Sep 6, 2015

ralphlambrecht said:
Can you recommend a dedicated film scanner for 35mm and MF?

Sorry, I won't be much help. I have a Nikon 9000 and it does a good job, but it's been unavailable for quite a while and fetches ridiculous prices on the used market. Buying one of these used can be perilous since they are pretty fragile and I don't know if Nikon is even servicing these any more.

I have no hands-on experience with any of the following:
Plustek is still making inexpensive 35mm scanners. They have a MF scanner, too, but I'd hate to pay $2000 for a MF scanner that doesn't even have the ability to focus.

You might consider a used Nikon 5000 or the V ED for 35mm scanning; earlier models might be OK, too. A new Plustek is probably OK so a low-risk investment, especially if you can drive it with VueScan.

MF is a problem. There are some brands still available but I know nothing about them so you will need to spend some quality time with Google. A used Imacon will probably set you back more than a drum scanner, but at least you won't be required to wet mount You can occasionally find a quality flatbed like a Creo, but these are still expensive, and they are LARGE and HEAVY (200 lbs?). Unless it's inexpensive and includes software and delivery, I wouldn't bother.

maxmars · Sep 7, 2015

For 35mm only, you can buy brand new plusteks and reflectas.
I've had both the plustek 8100 and the reflecta 10T (which I currently use), the best being the reflecta in my experience. Plustek is also good but produces softer images (beside having a somewhat lower resolution).
The reflecta also has a scratch / dust removal feature that is invaluable for color images, especially if you have external labs process your negatives.

The same brands make MF + 35mm scanners, but I have no experience with them. I see from tests published online that their resolution is lower than same brand dedicated 35mm scanners, so if you mainly do 35mm I'd think twice about them (they're still much better, resolution wise, than flatbed scanners).

This site has a lot of tests:
Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice

TareqPhoto · Sep 7, 2015

And where can find those used drum scanners to buy and can scan up to 8x10 for lower than $2000? i am willing to pay even $2500 maximum if i can find a drum scanner that can resolve high quality and can print up to 8x10 or even larger and still working good as used, but not sure about software and OS compatibility itself.

lenny · Sep 7, 2015

ralphlambrecht said:
Well,It's not much of a campaign but you are right;just can't help myself.The pure thought of getting a fluid onto my negatives makes me curl inside.I'd prefer a drier method after putting all this effort into my negatives. river rocks can take more abuse than my negs;even though some seem bullet proof

I'm sure on occasion you have put film cleaner on to your negs. It you put that stuff on a drum it will ruin it. Mounting fluid is mostly naptha, much gentler than a film cleaner. Every test done on it shows no ill effects to negatives. Irrational fears are just that...

Some people use baby oil. And of course, there is no rule that you have to wet mount. There's plenty of folks that mount dry or use anti-newton spray.

Which scanner would be best for me?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency