Scanner Recommendation

[my_photography]

A friend asked me to recommend a scanner for 35mm. My experience with scanners are much outdated and the result I obtained last time, I was not happy. I did a quick search here and seems like most of the topics here regarding scanners are already few years old. Can some one recommend?

I remember reading here once about scanning through DSLR. The result I obtained last time was not good at all. Maybe I did it incorrectly. Anyone remember where the link is?


(Question 1 is for my friend and question 2 is for me. I have not been using film for a long while and would love to shoot film again if I can find a good way to digitize my film.)

[martinsmith99]

Plustek scanners have a good rep. I was tied between one and a Epson V500, but went for the latter for it's versatility. I actually think I should have gone with the former.

[eeyore_nl]

[my_photography]

My friend did not specify whether dedicated film scanner or not. Perhaps recommendation for both and he can make his own decision.

By the way, I don't think Pulstek is sold where I am from.

[eeyore_nl]

[mo]

This is a link to the makers in America
http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/introduction.html
Interesting to hear they are an ok scanner...I see them on ebay all the time but have always thought of them as second rate... because ebay is the only place I see them. Not sound reasoning I know.

[calvin83]

[Attila]

Epson V500 look my scans, I doubt any 35mm scanner in this price range will be better.

http://forum.mflenses.com/sonnar-5cm-f1-5-t-pre-war-lens-kiev-4-foma-100-budapest-t37185.html

[my_photography]

[cooltouch]

Epson scanners are generally a safe bet. I believe the V500 has been replaced by the V600. If you have more to spend then you might want to look at the V700 or even the V750. These are mostly of value if you'll be scanning medium and large format, though.

I have an Epson 4990, which was the immediate predecessor to the V700. I have been very happy with it for medium format scans. It it my opinion, however, based on a fair amount of research, that for 35mm, any flatbed scanner will not be any better than "adequate." This is why I began to duplicate my slides and B&W negatives with my DSLR. You might be referring to the thread I posted on that subject here.

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=22881

However, using a duplicator for color negatives can be tricky. It's been a real hit-or-miss operation for me trying to get the colors right, so I generally still scan my color 35mm negs with my 4990.

[my_photography]

[gaeger]

I got an Epson V300 at Christmas, and it does pretty swell job, I think. Plus it was cheap!

[martinsmith99]

What you need the images for should really dictate which you buy. For web-sized images, most entry level ones are fine. I have made 8x12 prints on my V500 from 35mm negatives and they have been top quality; difficult to tell apart from 5D mkii images.

[Lloydy]

As I have a huge collection of slides to copy this topic caught my eye so I looked for info' on the Epson V 600, and found this good article.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM



.

[cooltouch]

Hey Lloyd,

I just read through that article and found it basically empty of content. The author continuously used a straw man argument against adding Vuescan or Silverfast to the V600, claiming that one might as well buy a V700 if one did that. This is bunk. Vuescan is cheap and does a good job if somebody really objects to Epson Scan. Adding Vuescan into the total cost with the street price of the V600 and you aren't even up to half the price of a V700. So, so much for that argument.

Second, he was using a pre-release scanner. Tell you what, most credible places won't do reviews of pre-release products. He even admitted at the end that the software that came with his scanner was different from that which shipped with the original scanners.

Third, he keeps alluding to the idea that somebody who decides to scan their slides and negatives will likely spend the rest of their life doing so. Geez, enough already. I managed to scan thousands of slides and negatives with my scanners while I was doing other things -- watching TV, posting messages online, reading -- whatever. You're not required to sit there and stare at your scanner while it's doing its business. So, so much for that stupid argument.

He continues to recommend sending your images out to be scanned. Well, I tried this. They were scanned at about 1800 ppi (5mp), which is pretty standard from what I've found and which is suitable really only for 4x6 inch prints. A good flatbed will do a better job. And so much for that argument.

I have never used a V600 -- just the older Epsons. I own a 3170 and a 4990. And I've had no problems scanning properly exposed negatives using Epson Scan software. In fact, I've used evaluation copies of Vuescan and Silverfast, and I prefer Epson Scan. It's easier to use than either of the other two and the results I get are just as good as with the other two, if not better.

And you'll note that he does mention using a duplicator rig with a DSLR. Like I do. Because it's fast and gives better images to boot. And if a person already has a macro lens it might not be that expensive or difficult for one to put together a good duplicating rig.

Here's a link to the scanning forum at dpug.org. If you read up on what these folks have to say regarding scanning and scanners, you will probably learn more than you ever wanted to know on the subject.

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/

[Lloydy]

Thank you Michael, the more reliable info' the better.

I have an Epson all in one Stylus Photo RX620 with a light in the lid etc for scanning, but I haven't had very good results with it. I suspect the software is poor ?
I also have a stand alone scanner, an old Epson that is under the spare room bed at the moment so I don't know what model it is, and I have the attachments for that as well. I kinda remember having more luck with that, I'll go and retrieve it tomorrow.

One thing that article did say was that 'VueScan' software worked with most scanners and is ( probably ) better. Is that the case?

The other thing I read with interest in that article was the "SHORT COURSE ON SCANNING" section, but I have no idea if the guy is talking through his butt or not.
I have a big problem with this kind of stuff because I have dyscalculia and after about 30 seconds of reading through this kind of instructions with so many numbers my brain just switches off and I might just as well be reading a recipe for cooking dinner! ( I don't cook either )

I always suspected that everything on the internet isn't true !

[alex]

I have an Epson 4990, and a Plustek 7500i. Very little to choose between them, unless you have a lot of film scanning to do, in which case the Epson wins hands down. I chose the Epson originally because I wanted the capability to scan rollfilm.

I have Silverfast and Vuescan, as well as the Epson sofware for the 4990. The Epson software's interface is streets ahead of Silverfast and Vuescan put together for usability. Silverfast is very good indeed, but its interface is clunky, and I hate with a passion that's almost irrational the fact that it's tied to your model of scanner. Buying a new scanner? You need to buy a new version of Silverfast. Vuescan is far better in that respect, you just buy it once, and if you get the professional version (no economic reason not to), it not only works on nearly everything, but updates are free forever. Unfortunately, the interface is old-fashioned, counter-intuitive, and appears to have been designed by an enthusiastic schoolboy programmer. The end result is that I use the Epson scan software for just about everything.

Batching things on the Epson is a piece of cake. With Vuescan, it's a nightmare. I've been scanning decades worth of 35mm archives, and on the Plustek it would have been a logistical nightmare, as the Plustek has no motor to pull the film/slide holder through, it's entirely hand-operated. With the Epson, you load the film holder frame, and click on Scan. It then scans up to 24 frames at a time, numbering them sequentially, while you go off and brew some coffee. It's a pity the holder doesn't take 36 frames, but I got round this by contacting Epson and buying a spare 35mm filmholder set, and loading the remaining strips while the first lot were scanning, ready for a simple open-and-swap.

The Epson scan software does a good job in identifying all the frames in a 35mm strip, but I've never had any success with rollfilm. No matter whether it's 6x9 or 6x6 or 6x4.5, it gets regularly confused, so you always end up creating a 'marquee' and re-using it frame by frame. Fortunately, it's no great hassle.

[cooltouch]

Alex, you've summed things up very well! Including my sentiments toward both Silverfast and Vuescan. So well, that we might want to recommend to Lloyd that he look for a 4990. Or a 4870, which is virtually the same unit, but can probably found for a little cheaper.

Lloyd, you're probably not gonna want to wade through this article because it's kinda long, but I think I did a reasonably good job of explaining the various options when one wants to digitize ones slides. And I ended up going into quite a bit of detail describing what all you need to do for scanning with a flatbed. So . . . anyway, you can find it at my blog, here:

http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/?p=100

[eeyore_nl]

One thing that I like very much about Vuescan is the option to create RAW scans. Never a need to re-scan when you are not satisfied with the settings you used, because you still have the raw digitized original.

[tikkathree]

[visualopsins]

Scanner Dmax is less than dSLR Dmax.

With dSLR, lens resolution is important -- the lenses in those inexpensive 35mm slide copiers are not as good a quality macro lens or quality lens on bellows.

For medium format, scanner resolution is better than resolution obtained with APS-C dSLR.

[lauge]

[cooltouch]

[Scheimpflug]

[cooltouch]