Why do scanning companies not produce better scanners instead of always going downhill?

[Agulliver]

I am certainly happy with my ancient Epson flatbed. I forget the model number but it was given to me years ago and I note that the price for a used version has gone up 6x since I acquired mine. I looked into paying the person who gave it to me and they weren't interested, but it gave me an idea that it wasn't considered worth much. Then last year I thought the scanner was broken and looked into buying a new or used one and was quite shocked at the state of the scanner market.

I do believe that most film photographers also own a digital camera and can go down that route for "scanning". Those starting out probably get a lab or a more experienced friend to scan for them. I develop and scan B&W films for a few friends in their early twenties.

I would imagine the next move in the "scanner" market will be more compact solutions for "scanning" via DSLR or other suitable digital cameras...with a small handful of genuine scanners on the market becoming more expensive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

After looking at your results, I would not come to the same conclusion. Comparing the unsharpened results, the Howtek scans were significantly more detailed than the Epson. After sharpening, the Epson results were considerably improved. I guess you could say the sharpened Epson result compared favorably to the unsharpened Howtek result, but I think it would have been more relevant to compare sharpened to sharpened.

After only a brief search, I was unable to find anyone selling new Howtek scanners. Are they still in production? I did see a spec sheet indicating they require a SCSI connection, so I'm guessing the Howtek drum scanners are another remnant of the glory days, now facing extinction?

At least Epson is still selling a flatbed scanners, and for that we should be thankful. For 4x5" photographers, I suspect the Epson V850 is still a good choice. But maybe not so good for 135 photographers(?) I don't really know.

I understand your point. First off, we don;lt know if Howtek does or doesn't sharpen their scans automatically when it creates its file. Second, we;re concerned with comparing final results. So if the sharpened Epson compares with the Howtek in the end, that's what counts.

The fact Epson still sells the V850 and Howtek doesn't sell anything reminds me of the joke I modified for a photo fourm:

So the photo bug goes to the film store to buy a roll of Ektachrome 100 and asks "How much is it?"

The dealer responds, “Well, it’s $15 a roll but we’re all out right now. It’s back ordered.”

So the photo bug leaves the store and goes to another store down the block.

“How much is a roll of Ektachrome and do you have any?”

The second dealer responds, “Oh, it’s $20 a roll and we have loads.”

“$20?” complains the photo bug raising his voice. “The other dealer only charges $15 a roll.”

“Well,” says the second dealer. “When we’re out of Ektachrome, we only charge $10 a roll.

 

[Prest_400]

Ironically enough, my almost sole reason to upgrade my digital camera body is for camera scanning. Recently did so, because this "scanner" can also be used to take pictures and though it would be good timing given a couple summer trips. I went from an early generation 16MP m43 to en EM1.3, which to boot, has the pixel shift high resolution mode. Admittedly the latter has the benefit of an output without Bayer filtering, and any gained resolution is good as I am mainly a medium format shooter now.

Have access to a V800 in a shared space, but I didn't bother to do much proper scanning with it. I agree with a previous poster that the Coolscan 9000 series is probably the peak of (household) film scanners, fantastic performance, including ICE that was able to clean up Kodachrome. But now it's a $2K used specialised electronic device.

I have procastinated and will continue to do so for my own (color) scans. Should be starting with the setup over the summer.

how many people actually need more "resolving power" than that?

How many people need the photos most of us take to begin with? That sort of question goes nowhere.

About getting a large resolving power question... I'd approach it as a data preservation and archivist perspective. If there is a scan with real resolution and detail, ie. grain is well resolved; that is appreciated.
Flatbeds are rather frustrating because I feel I get "blur" and not capture some of the detail of what is in the negative. Mostly thinking V600 series here; which are decent enough with sharpening, but a nice sharp scan that I can view large in the monitor is also very appreciated!
Then there is the color. I've seen that Slide film scans usually don't have the same punch as original but a few scans I have seen, mostly from Imacons and Drum, really appear like the slide.
And a second comment about the color, it may be "candy like" but software from Minilab scanners really give some pleasant results.

A good outcome of this thread is that I now know Epson continues to manufacture the V850. Had seen the rumors of its discontinuation early in the year.

So the photo bug goes to the film store to buy a roll of Ektachrome 100 and asks "How much is it?"

That should be updated for Fujichrome! Kodak are actually doing a good job availability wise, and I see Ektachrome in stock (Europe) quite a bit, and yes, never below $20 anymore...
Provia or Velvia's availability appear more akin to dropshipping than continuous distribution nowadays...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I honestly don't know why people moan about the quality of flatbed scanners. I have a V750 that I bought in 2012 and it is excellent. I regularly scan 120 film up to 8x10 film, and from the latter I get huge files up to 1.8gb that are spectacularly sharp and contain every atom of information I could ever need/want for further processing. I can't imagine needing anything better.
Caveat: I only scan B&W negs, so my work may be different from yours.

Koraks hit the nail on the head! I have the V850 version and a Nikon LS8000. The V850 Epson gives the LS8000 and good run for the money with 120, but can never catch up to it or pass it. In 35mm the Nikon LS8000 is superior in all respects. Of course the Epson V850 trounces the Nikon LS 8000 when it comes to 4X5 and 8X10 film scanning.

 

[John Wiegerink]

A good outcome of this thread is that I now know Epson continues to manufacture the V850. Had seen the rumors of its discontinuation early in the year.

You might want to check to make sure Epson is going to continue with the Epson V850. There are many rumors around about the "end of the run" for the V850.

 

[albireo]

Koraks hit the nail on the head! I have the V850 version and a Nikon LS8000. The V850 Epson gives the LS8000 and good run for the money with 120, but can never catch up to it or pass it. In 35mm the Nikon LS8000 is superior in all respects.

pity your LS8000 is still in the cottage!

 

[wiltw]

I do believe that most film photographers also own a digital camera and can go down that route for "scanning". Those starting out probably get a lab or a more experienced friend to scan for them. I develop and scan B&W films for a few friends in their early twenties.

I would imagine the next move in the "scanner" market will be more compact solutions for "scanning" via DSLR or other suitable digital cameras...with a small handful of genuine scanners on the market becoming more expensive.

The shortcoming of using dSLR to 'scan' color negs is the need for using supplemental software application to 'convert' the negative image (with its background orange mask) into proper reversal image with appropriate contrast and density. Using RAW conversion software to try to do this, or using software like Paintshop Pro (at least trying to do so with older versions -- I do not know how more recent versions can do this) is horridly deficient. Dedicated scanning software capability to 'negative scan' provided by the scanner vendor worked quite well, in comparison.

 

[koraks]

@wiltw any tool that can adjust curves (GIMP, Photoshop and surely many others) can do this 'trick'. It's down to user competence in the end. I've done a blog and a video on this; I've posted them several times before. It's a workflow that can yield perfect consistency and high productivity for both old-school scanning and dSLR digitization. GIMP btw is free to use so available to all.

 

[John Wiegerink]

pity your LS8000 is still in the cottage!

Yes, it's at the cottage and so am I. I posted that it was not working and that I had tried fixing it, but with no luck. I went without it for a while and then decided to try the Epson V850/GT-X980 until I could get the Nikon LS8000 fixed. Then I stumbled on a clue as to what might be wrong with the Nikon LS8000. I tore it all back apart and viola, did the fix and it's now running better than before.

 

[albireo]

Yes, it's at the cottage and so am I. I posted that it was not working and that I had tried fixing it, but with no luck. I went without it for a while and then decided to try the Epson V850/GT-X980 until I could get the Nikon LS8000 fixed. Then I stumbled on a clue as to what might be wrong with the Nikon LS8000. I tore it all back apart and viola, did the fix and it's now running better than before.

Glad you got it back up and running!

 

[Steven Lee]

It's unfortunate that a potentially interesting conversation got derailed by the usual "scanner vs camera" and "scanning vs wet printing" bullshit. Those points are irrelevant to the OP's question.

My view on the topic is that there's not one single prevailing reason, but a combination of the following:

• Small market.
• Human capital concentration elsewhere.
• Changed user needs.

Any of the three in isolation can't explain the phenomenon, but when combined I see them as sufficient. Let's break it down:

Small market
Others have covered it quite well. The market for film scanners is a fraction of what it used to be. Counter argument: do not look at a broad scanner market, look at segments. Film labs, for example, are happily buying $10K+ ancient Noritsus and Imacons. I have asked 3 leading reasoning LLMs to estimate the number of physical film-scanning labs around the world and they've agreed on the 1,500-2,500 range. Offering them a subscription-based $1k/month scanning solution is not a crazy business plan. And yet, Plustek can't do it.

Human capital concentration
This one is less obvious unless you run a business. 90% of humans available to hire for any role, from engineering to finance, sales, and accounting aren't the people who will help you build an introduce an innovative product to the market, regardless of how much time you give them and how much you pay them. And the 10% of "drivers" tend to work in just a handful of industries. At the moment that's mostly software and finance, and due to globalization the phenomenon is global. If you're are an average electronics manufacturer "enjoying" average revenue-per-employee ratio of your industry, you simply don't have access to those people. Even Fujifilm can't build their own RAW converter or a tethering application for their cameras. That's also why every infotainment system in cars looks like WinAmp from the 90s.

Changed user needs
During the film heyday everyone wanted "true colors", "fine grain" and generally the good IQ was highly desirable. These were the requirements the Coolscan was designed to meet. An average film user today no longer wants IQ. They can get mirror-like image quality out of commodity digital technology available in multiple form factors. They are looking for something else. The "retro look" which they think is the same as "film look", is what they want. There is no point of designing a new piece of hardware to deliver the "retro look". "Retro look" comes for free to anyone with an iPhone and no scanning skills.

 

[koraks]

@Steven Lee the human capital issue is really not the bottleneck. There are plenty of engineering firms that can make a scanner and plenty of EMS firms to build the machine in volume. All you need is to put money in the table, which doesn't happen because ...the market is too small.

 

[koraks]

@Steven Lee I understand there was a response of yours that was deleted because it made a rather weird connection, which didn't make a whole lot of sense to be honest.

I'll clarify a little about my background which my remarks are based on. This is in innovation management and I've been involved in many ventures and in various roles, big and small, mature and nascent, and very specifically in high-tech domains on the interface of multiple disciplines like mechatronics, optics, electronics, chemistry etc. I'm also acutely aware of how NPD (new product development) processes are organized, what kind of resources are needed, how these map onto industrial networks & supply chains, what kind of competencies come into play and where to find those, etc. etc. I'll happily admit that in many areas my knowledge is 'amateur level', e.g. when it comes to photochemistry - however, in this particular case, I'm very well aware of what I'm talking about, both at a theoretical and practical level.

The plain and simple truth of the lack of a scanner development in recent years was explained in the first few posts of this thread. That's why not a whole lot of discussion on that took place; the matter was essentially settled. You can of course explore the dynamics involved, which make for an interesting and ultimately complex arrangement of interrelated dynamics and constructs (it'd be kind of fun to do a system dynamics/causal loop diagram exercise on it, come to think of it), but the net result will always spiral down to that same observation: lack of a sufficiently large market. From a technical viewpoint, it's feasible. From a human resource viewpoint, there are hundreds and likely even thousands of regions on this planet where you'll find the competencies required for a viable film scanning device within a 100 mile radius - and that's if you would somehow want to restrict the development within the limits of physical proximity, for which there's not even a strict reason.

The bottleneck is just that there will not be a sufficient number of buyers over the anticipated technology lifecycle to make the endeavor viable for a commercial enterprise. That's why we see these developments limited to (1) established parties playing their 'last man standing' card after the industry has essentially shaken itself down (Plustek, Epson), or (2) tiny-scale niche endeavors like we've seen on this forum once or twice (in various degrees of success/completion) that rely either on a tiny market with very particular requirements and deep pockets (i.e. not consumers), or voluntary work done by enthusiasts (which generally run aground because it's a bit much of a project for one or two guys in a shed).

 

[Steven Lee]

@koraks You are absolutely correct, but where we disagree is the impact of key talent. For example, some of the constraints you've listed aren't as static as they appear, like "sufficient number of buyers". There are GTM people out there who can increase that number, and will lift sales of film along the way, but they are, sadly, not interested in working in this industry.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I don't thin k lack of market (amount of buyers) or cost have anything to do with making someone like the OP happy. It's all about money/$$$$! If I have $25 to $30 million dollars and want a scanner I'm sure I could get one built by somebody and it might blow any Nikon or better scanner right out of the water. Yup, it's all about money!

 

[wiltw]

@wiltw any tool that can adjust curves (GIMP, Photoshop and surely many others) can do this 'trick'. It's down to user competence in the end. I've done a blog and a video on this; I've posted them several times before. It's a workflow that can yield perfect consistency and high productivity for both old-school scanning and dSLR digitization. GIMP btw is free to use so available to all.

Can you post another link to the process, for those of us who have missed this in the past?

 

[koraks]

@koraks You are absolutely correct, but where we disagree is the impact of key talent. For example, some of the constraints you've listed aren't as static as they appear, like "sufficient number of buyers". There are GTM people out there who can increase that number, and will lift sales of film along the way, but they are, sadly, not interested in working in this industry.

I understand your argument, but I'm afraid we'll have to just disagree on that one, too. I personally don't think that film demand could be boosted to such an extent as to breathe life back into a hypothetical consumer scanner market. Of course, that's just an opinion - in the end, I think you and I both realize that ultimately, consumer behavior doesn't model as nicely as economists once contended (i.e. we're not really rational actors), so there's always a possibility that the world would massively adopt film again. But it would definitely surprise me greatly, also given the lack of any precedent in history (to the best of my knowledge) of re-adoption of the same, mature technology at a large scale after a period of strong decline.

Can you post another link to the process, for those of us who have missed this in the past?

Yes, sure.
Here's the text version: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/flipped-doing-color-negative-inversions-manually/
This one is basically the same story, but demonstrated in a video: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/flipping-the-movie-color-negative-inversion-process-video/
And this blog is background reading on the issue of consistency, which the inversion method relates closely to: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/all-over-the-place-the-problem-with-color-negative-film-scans/

 

[BMbikerider]

Agreed. Digital camera scanning has taken over much of what was already a declining market.

Using a camera to.....errrrr scan an image is NOT scanning it is merely taking a photograph of a photograph. Come on get the terms correct! It is so very easy to get sloppy when describing something incorrectly.

 

[koraks]

Using a camera to.....errrrr scan an image is NOT scanning it is merely taking a photograph of a photograph.

All a scanner does is taking many strips of photographs of photographs and then putting those strips together in a single photograph. The difference in the end really isn't very big. So there's no need to chastise people for incorrect use of terminology, especially not because they're all being very clear in what they mean by speaking of 'camera scanning', which removes any possible confusion right from the start.

Let's put the matter to rest whether camera digitization can be referred to as 'scanning'. As long as it's made clear what is meant, anything goes. That's what language does, after all - allow us to convey thoughts and concepts to each other. As long as it does that, it doesn't really matter which words are involved.

 

[BMbikerider]

Agreed. I would skip the Epson flatbed step if I were to redo it all over again. Nowadays if I were a budding 35mm film photographer on a budget I'd just spend those $300 on a tiny Plustek 8100 or on the motorized version (I think it's called 135i) and call it a day. The jump in quality from a flatbed is pretty spectacular on well exposed+developed negatives. And it's really tiny, and pretty quiet for a film scanner.

Really good value line of products.

They had a 120 model too. Not sure what happened to that one.

Agreed with that. I have an Epson V600 and with 120 it is ....OK.... but not as good as a proper film scanner such as the Nikons, and Minoltas were and now dealt with by Plustec. Even with 120 never mind 35mm enlargements up to A3 are to all intents and purposes fuzzy on the edges of objects. Even with my Coolscan V a 35mm scan will be sharp and almost but not quite as good as a 'proper' print via a darkroom and the wet process.

 

[BMbikerider]

All a scanner does is taking many strips of photographs of photographs and then putting those strips together in a single photograph. The difference in the end really isn't very big. So there's no need to chastise people for incorrect use of terminology, especially not because they're all being very clear in what they mean by speaking of 'camera scanning', which removes any possible confusion right from the start.

Let's put the matter to rest whether camera digitization can be referred to as 'scanning'. As long as it's made clear what is meant, anything goes. That's what language does, after all - allow us to convey thoughts and concepts to each other. As long as it does that, it doesn't really matter which words are involved.

I appreciate what you say But. it isn't scanning in the accepted sense, it is what I could describe as word drift where over sometimes quite short period of time meanings of words are adopted or adapted. Scanning in my accepted sense of the word is using a scanner. Using a camera it is still taking a photograph of a photograph. While you could argue that a scanner does the same by making a photograph of another image they are not the same.

Perhaps I could explain what I mean with another example where there is a creeping sloppiness of word use. I was always taught to describe something as closely as could and if someone asked me today. " Where is the station please?" Do they mean the bus station or railway station. What do they mean exactly, the two could be miles apart.

This, I respectfully submit has the same difference as scanning or taking a photograph of a photograph! Or is it laziness in formulating a sentence? This is even more important in legal matters where judicial decisions can be swayed by bad description.

 

[tykos]

i really hope no judicial decisions are made reading these forum topics...

 

[koraks]

This, I respectfully submit has the same difference as scanning or taking a photograph of a photograph!

No it doesn't. The practical implication of a confusion w.r.t. 'station' is evident and significant. The practical implications of confusing dSLR digitization and scanning are much more limited as to approach insignificance, and as I said before, the confusion is prevented in practice because people quite consistently specify 'camera/dslr scanning' if that's what they mean. So no, I don't agree with your argument.

And now we're going to put a stop to this pedantry - for that's really what it is, and nothing more. Further posts trying to press the same point may be removed.

 

[wiltw]

All a scanner does is taking many strips of photographs of photographs and then putting those strips together in a single photograph. The difference in the end really isn't very big. So there's no need to chastise people for incorrect use of terminology, especially not because they're all being very clear in what they mean by speaking of 'camera scanning', which removes any possible confusion right from the start.

Let's put the matter to rest whether camera digitization can be referred to as 'scanning'. As long as it's made clear what is meant, anything goes. That's what language does, after all - allow us to convey thoughts and concepts to each other. As long as it does that, it doesn't really matter which words are involved.

OTOH, one can make the point that 'photo replication with SLR' existed for DECADES preceeding the invention of any 'scanning' device (the first of which was the advent of the photocopier!)
I submit that 'photo replication with dSLR' is more similar in both concept and practice to 'photo replication with SLR' (only digital sensor in liue of film is the difference) , than it is similar to any electromechanical 'scanner'.
BTW, thank you for the links in Post 67.

 

[Radost]

You can't get drum scanners. I learned about Coolscans just today and they seem to be discontinued. I've used Epson's of all grades and disliked them for film.

Why do scanning companies not produce better scanners instead of always going downhill?

<><><><>​

Pacific Image XAS and XA Plus $549 on amason are outstanding scanners. I get better results with XAS compared to Lab scans with frontier and Noritsu. And having control is a must.
Their 120 while not as outstanding as XAS produce great results.