# A question about scanners



## TiCoyote (Jan 2, 2014)

In high school, I learned B&W film photography.  Now, I'm shooting all digital, professional wedding photography.  

My father-in-law just gave me a MF TLR.  It's in the shop right now with a sticky shutter.  I'd really like to start taking MF B&W portraits.  It's mostly for fun.  I love the look and depth and grain of the film, and I like the hands-on process of processing and developing.  I imagine, I could eventually offer professional film service to high-end clients, but that's looking a few years down the road.  

For under $150, I can get a changing bag, tank, chemicals, film, etc., and process the film in my basement.  

Then what to do next?  Enlarge or scan?  I imagine that I would get the best image with an enlarger, but I don't really want to turn the basement into a darkroom, and my wife REALLY doesn't want me to do that either.  

So I'm looking at a scanners.  From what I hear, scanning is the weak link.  I'm not ready to drop $2k on a PlusTek OpticFilm 120, although I understand they are the bees' knees.  If I get to the point that I can offer professional film services, that may be the way to go, but I don't think this is the tool for trying things out and learning.  

I'd prefer to spend around $200 on a CanoScan 9000F MkII, or an Epson Perfection V 600.  From what I understand, most people comment that they are pretty good scanners for $200, but don't expect the moon.  And between the two, Imaging-Resource and Shutterbug seem to prefer the Canon, but McNamara report shows that the Epson has higher resolution and dynamic range in this video: 




Another option is the V700 for around $650.  Maybe cheaper used.  If it's leaps and bounds better, I'd go with that.  But it's a CRT scanner, not an LED scanner, so it's slower.  And if it's slower, only a little sharper, and more expensive, I'd rather have one of the first two.  

A third option is getting one of the cheaper scanners and then getting the Silverfast software ($120) and/or the BetterScanning negative holder ($80).  

I checked out lab scanning services, but they seem to run $3-4 per negative, so that ends up at around $50 per role.  Too expensive.  

Can anyone please share thoughts and experiences?  Thank you.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 2, 2014)

I use a V600 and have been happy with it.  There's not really much to complain about, IMO.  I can't comment on the Canon scanner.

Another difference between the V600 & V700 is that the V700 can also scan large format (and more frames of 35mm/120 at once).  Might not be an issue, but it's something to consider.  I haven't used it though - so I can't give you a direct comparison of the two.  I do plan on getting one eventually though (for the large format option)...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 2, 2014)

I just got this one.  Pretty good if you only do 35mm and slides.  It can do 7200 dpi scan which is super high compared to other scanners.
OpticFilm 8200i Ai | OpticFilm 8200i Ai | Plustek


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 2, 2014)

A dedicated film scanner is better then a flatbed. The OpticFilm scanner mentioned above looks like a nice one. Or you could get a used Nikon Coolscan or Minolta Dimage. I've used many scanners in my time in labs. By far the best is the Noritzu 1800 I use at work. Of course the common man can't afford $25,000 for one.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2014)

I have an older Epson Perfection 3200 Photo, a flatbed that has a transparency adapter. It scans 6x6 and 4x5 inch film pretty well, actually. It's the offering from "before" the V-series scanners, and at the time,was considered decent in the photo hobbyist realm. You can spend anywhere from $300 to $40,00 for a 'good scanner'. 

The real secret to medium format and 4x5 is that you do not absolutely "need" ultra-high resolution anything to make a good enlargement! The smaller the film format, the more-essential high-rez "stuff" is. On medium format, even a CHEAP 4-element lens from an old Ricohflex or Yashica twin-lens will maker a good 20x20 inch print if the lens was at f/7.1 and you focused accurately.

Forget the need for a high-speed scanner...scanning a frame of medium format takes a "while", but the time is like 15 TIMES FASTER than making even one single test enlargement!!! STart modestly, and see how this shakes out before you start writing for drum scanner brochures...


----------



## TiCoyote (Jan 3, 2014)

Thanks, Derrel.  A thoughtful and knowledgeable post, as always! 

I found the reviews at this site to be the most thorough and definitive: Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice

For now, I'm going to get the Canon.  It's the fastest and the cheapest, so hopefully it will introduce the least frustration.  I also plan to get Vuescan.  The consensus seems to be that it's easier to use than Silverfast, even though Silverfast might eventually produce better results after a significant learning curve.  Also, again it's cheaper.  

In a year or two, if I'm doing a lot of this, I might pick up the Pacific Image Primefilm 120.  They run $1250 on sale, and they're faster than the OpticFilm 120, with comparable image quality.  Right now, Vuescan's support for the Pacific Image is... well, uncertain.  But maybe in a year or two they will have adopted it.  I need a new flatbed scanner anyway, so I can keep the Canon for other things.  

Thank you everyone for the input.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

TiCoyote said:


> I also plan to get Vuescan.  The consensus seems to be that it's easier to use than Silverfast, even though Silverfast might eventually produce better results after a significant learning curve.  Also, again it's cheaper.


Try both.

I personally never liked VueScan, but loved SilverFast.  The learning curve wasn't as bad as you may have been lead to believe.  There may be a free trial, not sure.  [EDIT - There is.]  The 'lesser' versions of SilverFast can often be found bundled with scanners.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 4, 2014)

Or you could look into scanning with your DSLR.

A macro lens or even a tube and you can either take a photo of the whole negative or take several and stitch them together for even higher resolution.


----------



## limr (Jan 4, 2014)

Didn't see this until today. I've been using the Canon CanoScan 8800, which is the model I believe that is being replaced by the 9000. I've had absolutely no complaints at all. It's been really great for my purposes. Even scanning at 1200 dpi, I've been able to get sharp 11x14 prints from a 35mm negative. With MF negatives, of course, you could go even bigger at the lower res and then super big at a higher res.

I've never used the editing software that comes with the Canon, though, so I can't comment on that. Well, that's not exactly true. Sometimes I'll add a little backlight or color correction before the scan, but I don't do any post processing with it. I have Corel PaintShop ProX5 that I'm fairly happy with.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 4, 2014)

limr said:


> Didn't see this until today. I've been using the Canon CanoScan 8800, which is the model I believe that is being replaced by the 9000. I've had absolutely no complaints at all. It's been really great for my purposes. Even scanning at 1200 dpi, I've been able to get sharp 11x14 prints from a 35mm negative. With MF negatives, of course, you could go even bigger at the lower res and then super big at a higher res.
> 
> I've never used the editing software that comes with the Canon, though, so I can't comment on that. Well, that's not exactly true. Sometimes I'll add a little backlight or color correction before the scan, but I don't do any post processing with it. I have Corel PaintShop ProX5 that I'm fairly happy with.



1200 dpi?  35mm = 1.37 inches.  1.37*1200= 1644 pixel wide.  That is awfully small.  You want scanner that can scan 4000 dpi or higher.


----------



## limr (Jan 4, 2014)

That depends on what you're using it for. Seriously, 11x14 prints looked great. I meant to rescan the negative at a higher resolution but didn't have a chance to do so before I ordered the print (from Adoramapix) so I printed from the one that I'd scanned in lower just to see how it came out. Clearly it would depend on the actual image - some negatives scan in more information than others - and I might have been pushing it, but I didn't see any reason to rescan.

Edited: Just checked the files. The one that I didn't get a chance to rescan (Image A) was 1690x1113. Two others that I did rescan at 2400 dpi were obviously bigger. One was at 2863x4775 and another at 3795x4996, both of them from a 35mm negative. Actually, there was a third one that was very similar to Image A that was scanned in at 2400 dpi and the dimensions are 6224x4480. Now I remember that I wanted to rescan Image A, found the negative and when I scanned it in, I realized I'd chosen the wrong frame.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

3600 is like the minimum I scan at.  I usually scan at 4800.  Sometime more, if it's something I really feel good about.


----------



## limr (Jan 4, 2014)

I usually have no patience for a first-run scan I do just to see how things come out, and for my purposes, I really don't need anything higher. If I really get excited about something, I'll rescan higher, but for the most part, it's really not gaining me a lot scanning much higher.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 5, 2014)

limr said:


> That depends on what you're using it for. Seriously, 11x14 prints looked great. I meant to rescan the negative at a higher resolution but didn't have a chance to do so before I ordered the print (from Adoramapix) so I printed from the one that I'd scanned in lower just to see how it came out. Clearly it would depend on the actual image - some negatives scan in more information than others - and I might have been pushing it, but I didn't see any reason to rescan.
> 
> Edited: Just checked the files. The one that I didn't get a chance to rescan (Image A) was 1690x1113. Two others that I did rescan at 2400 dpi were obviously bigger. One was at 2863x4775 and another at 3795x4996, both of them from a 35mm negative. Actually, there was a third one that was very similar to Image A that was scanned in at 2400 dpi and the dimensions are 6224x4480. Now I remember that I wanted to rescan Image A, found the negative and when I scanned it in, I realized I'd chosen the wrong frame.



if it is 6224 pix and it was scanned at 2400, you weren't scanning a 35mm.  It is a source that's almost 3 in wide.


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > That depends on what you're using it for. Seriously, 11x14 prints looked great. I meant to rescan the negative at a higher resolution but didn't have a chance to do so before I ordered the print (from Adoramapix) so I printed from the one that I'd scanned in lower just to see how it came out. Clearly it would depend on the actual image - some negatives scan in more information than others - and I might have been pushing it, but I didn't see any reason to rescan.
> ...



Yes, I was scanning 35mm film. Look, I don't pretend to understand how the calculations work to turn a piece of film into a digitized file of a certain size, but I do know what I'm shooting and I do know what 35mm film is. (And for the record, the dimensions of one frame are 24mmx36mm.)


----------



## Derrel (Jan 5, 2014)

Ctein (pronounce Kuh-TINE) has some great articles about scanning and resolution and printing, and how "much" information can be recorded and outputted.

The Online Photographer: A Perfunctory Guide to Converting Photographic Film to Digital Prints, Part I

The Online Photographer: A Perfunctory Guide to Converting Photographic Film to Digital Prints, Part II

Bottom line: there is a very REAL cutoff point in both scanning, and in inkjet printing, where higher numbers and more data and bigger storage needs mean squat in terms of results. If one's printer is not up to the task, those super-high dots per inch figures don't represent any real gain.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 9, 2014)

webestang64 said:


> A dedicated film scanner is better then a flatbed. The OpticFilm scanner mentioned above looks like a nice one. Or you could get a used Nikon Coolscan or Minolta Dimage. I've used many scanners in my time in labs. By far the best is the Noritzu 1800 I use at work. Of course the common man can't afford $25,000 for one.



I dislike dedicated film scanners as I don't have time to baby sit it for every frame. They're also limited to just 35mm typically.


----------



## TiCoyote (Feb 1, 2014)

I've ordered the CansoScan 9000F MkII.  I needed a new flatbed anyway for documents.  The price went up in the past few weeks, but meh.  

I'm always thinking about the next step though.  If I do this a lot, in a year will I want to get the Pacific Image 120 ($1200-1500) OR send rolls to Millers to get scanned ($5 each +S&H).  

Even if shipping brought it to $10/roll, that would mean I would need to shoot at least 120 rolls before the scanner paid for itself. That would be a whole year shooting 2 rolls/week, which I probably won't.  

Then there's time.  If I scan them myself, figure at least 3min/frame.  That's 72 hours.  That's probably worth at least $2k.  

The flip side is the psychology.  If I'm paying per scan, I'm going to be apprehensive about shooting and scanning a lot.  If I already have the scanner, I'll want to use it as much as possible.  

Thoughts.  Thoughts.  Thoughts.  

I suppose the next step would really be to send a few rolls to Millers and see what I think of their service.


----------



## TiCoyote (Feb 3, 2014)

It turns out Miller's charges $5/negative, not per roll.  The $5/roll price doesn't apply to true B&W.  Harumph.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 3, 2014)

I'd go for the V600. If I recall, it is not large enough to do 4x5 large format in a single pass, but MF yes?  But it gets excellent reviews from anyone I've heard using it, including the folks over at the large format forums (not as good of reviews as the 700 of course, but much more $$$ efficient).

For medium format, scanning with your DSLR is also a quality option. It's not really up to snuff for 35mm, but MF I'd say yes. The setup I have used in the past to great effect is:
1) A tripod capable of mounting the camera underneath it more or less pointing straight down
2) A couple of boards on sawhorses or something like that
3) Two sheets of glass large enough to hold your photos between them flat
4) A remote flash with a softbox.
5) A macro extension tube
6) And a good, low-distortion lens (like a 50 prime or something)

This all costs more than a V600, but if you already have all those things (perhaps save for the glass), then you can save a lot.  The glass goes between the boards suspended over mid air, with the camera tripoded above it looking straight down (use a level). The negative goes in between the glass, and the softbox down below. The softbox ends up being far enough away that DOF will render it a completely blurry, perfectly diffuse backlight.  Then focus manually using live view maximum zoom in for perfection, and just snap photos of your negatives one by one. A little tedious to set up, but quite fast if you have a batch to process all at once.

You'll get a 4000 x 4000 pixel scan or whatever (using square MF as an example) of your negative, which you simply flip in photoshop and edit accordingly. The pixel count is lower than a scanner would imply, but in my experience, scanners don't actually capture detail down to their alleged pixels, and it ends up being pretty similar, actually. Unless your client is making prints to cover their entire living room wall, it's good enough.

AND if you're really hardcore, you can take photos and then pan the image around and stitch it all together later for essentially the maximum possible resolution a piece of film can hold.

Here's a large format I "scanned" using this method:


This is massively downrezzed for the internet, too, and from a single pass. In full size, if you take it in 4 shots and stitch, you can pretty much make out TEXTURAL DETAILS on individual bricks in the building in the middle. More than anything anyone would need.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 3, 2014)

^^^ Nice post, Gavjenks. This is the kind of stuff I love to see on TPF!


----------



## Tiller (Feb 3, 2014)

I've got an Epson 4990 and it produces nice scans and has holders from 35mm all the way to 8x10.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 3, 2014)

Ive got the V500 and get good 10x15 prints from 1600dpi scans


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 3, 2014)

To hell with the scanner, is that a Jaguar V12? In an E-type??


----------



## compur (Feb 3, 2014)

Looks like a 6-cylinder E Type engine to me.


----------



## Joxby (Feb 8, 2014)

I was never very impressed by flatbed scanners.
I mean they're ok for digitizing to post on forums and blogs or whatever, but I always struggled to obtain something really nice.
Its not just the output either, there are a multitude of faff factors to consider before you can say flatbeds are quicker and easier to use than dedicated scanners.
I've spent hours fannying about with film holders, adjusting heights, altering the way the holders grip the film to make the frame flat, the software and numerous other things, and I never managed to find the magic combo, I don't think it exists.
I've used the Epson 4490, 4990, V500, V700 and V750 with wet mount, non of them was less of a faff than a dedicated scanner.
Ok, the dedicated can't scan as many frames at once as a flatbed, but I just shove the thing in there in its glass carrier (which keeps the frame perfectly flat), it auto focuses on the frame (no height adjustments) and off it goes, a decent and true 4000dpi scan, the best copy of a frame available to a person yet to fulfill millionaire status 
I see the cost implication for scanning, 35mm isn't too bad, there are quite a few really good dedicated scanners that don't cost the Earth, once you move to MF things start to get expensive, from a cost perspective this is where the flatbeds move in.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 9, 2014)

6 cylinder E Type


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 9, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> I'd go for the V600. If I recall, it is not large enough to do 4x5 large format in a single pass, but MF yes? But it gets excellent reviews from anyone I've heard using it, including the folks over at the large format forums (not as good of reviews as the 700 of course, but much more $$$ efficient).
> 
> For medium format, scanning with your DSLR is also a quality option. It's not really up to snuff for 35mm, but MF I'd say yes. The setup I have used in the past to great effect is:
> 1) A tripod capable of mounting the camera underneath it more or less pointing straight down
> ...




That's really a nice BW.  But on the left side, the  rocks, water ripples and trees are blurry, maybe the clouds.  Is that in the negative or from the scans?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 10, 2014)

I use a plustek 7600, it does the job ok, but certainly does have some limitations. The digital ice system works fairly well, bottom line is that if it's a good neg, you'll get a good scan. I'm happy with it.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 10, 2014)

FWIW I have a Canon Pixma which has worked fine with 35mm up to 8 1/2 x 11; I've done my own prints for photos framed and displayed in juried exhibits. That's the thing, you need a good image to start with no matter what you're doing with it.  

Next time you post a picture of an E type, show the car!! (not just the engine lol).


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 10, 2014)

> That's really a nice BW. But on the left side, the rocks, water ripples and trees are blurry, maybe the clouds. Is that in the negative or from the scans?


Thanks!  It's in the negative. It's a really old-ass, probably originally pretty cheap, large format lens that I was using (probably 1920's? Bought for about $20), opened up wider than would normally be recommended. I think it was like f/6.3 on a 5.6 lens.

Lenses from that era--especially mediocre ones--tend to have a whole bunch of aberrations if you don't shoot with really small apertures, to the point where they have very noticeable "lensbaby" type effects to them, like you have noticed here, where it just gets blurry toward the edges, pretty much no matter what the actual distance to the subject is.  Imagine an MTF chart where the lines just crash almost to the bottom on the right hand side.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 10, 2014)

That's why I won't shoot expired film or use equipment that will do that arbitrarily.  Just when you get a really nice shot, after spending all that time and money, these other things ruin the shot.  Don't you find that frustrating like me?


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 10, 2014)

It's not arbitrary. I shot it almost wide open on purpose, because I was basically standing in the river and hand holding a wooden LF field camera.

Also, terribly extreme spherical aberration is trendy, man! See?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lomography/the-lomography-petzval-portrait-lens
=P


----------



## gsgary (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> That's why I won't shoot expired film or use equipment that will do that arbitrarily.  Just when you get a really nice shot, after spending all that time and money, these other things ruin the shot.  Don't you find that frustrating like me?



Send  all your out of date film to me because there will be nothing wrong with it
This is 26 years out of date Tri X 400


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> That's why I won't shoot expired film or use equipment that will do that arbitrarily.  Just when you get a really nice shot, after spending all that time and money, *these other things ruin the shot.  Don't you find that frustrating like me*?



No, because for me, those things don't ruin a shot. Not everything has to be All Sharp All the Time. It makes things interesting


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 11, 2014)

Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with?   Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice.  Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with?   Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice.  Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.




Because its not as much fun
This is Tmax400 very out of date and probably badly stored


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with?   Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice.  Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.



Because that's not how I'm interested in working.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 11, 2014)

And some very old HP5 and badly stored


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2014)

That's a sneak-attack puppy photo bomb! :mrgreen:


----------



## gsgary (Feb 11, 2014)

limr said:


> That's a sneak-attack puppy photo bomb! :mrgreen:



Even though its a bit rough this is one of my favourite shots

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 11, 2014)

I guess we're done scanning now, huh? LOL 

I think it just depends on what you want to do; I usually like to get a nice sharp well exposed image, but I have fun too with Polaroids and plastic cameras (not a lot of the 'new' ones as much as vintage midcentury bakelite whatevers). 

I got one of the Petzval lenses and so far used it to shoot some expired Kodak Portra - it was a pleasure to use. Has some weight to it! so I got a waist level finder to better be able to hold the camera to support the lens, but I had more fun with the Waterhouse stops - took me to what it must have been like in the early days of photography. And since I'm into old cameras I found it to be a lot of fun to work with. 

And had the negatives scanned. So now what was the question??


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with?   Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice.  Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.


Well,
1) I can just take new photos then, and
2) I've enjoyed defects for as long as I have been old enough to have a taste for ANYTHING. 25 years or so? Don't see that changing anytime terribly soon, fashion or not.


----------



## Bob in GV (Mar 22, 2014)

Another option if you don't process your own film is to have it scanned at time of development. Most quality labs will perform this service for around $10 per roll for highest resolution.


----------



## Joxby (Mar 22, 2014)

TiCoyote said:


> ......but I don't really want to turn the basement into a darkroom, and my wife REALLY doesn't want me to do that either.
> 
> 
> Can anyone please share thoughts and experiences?  Thank you.




Umm, but...

*.* developing your own film is fantastic
*. *making your own wet prints is fablious
*. *scanning your film is....a means to an end

life is full of compromises, I'd be plotting some kind of "understanding" with the wife..


----------



## WhiteRaven22 (Apr 20, 2014)

I just recently picked up an Epson Perfection V500 photo scanner to save on lab scanning costs.  Epson is selling them for $150 plus free shipping on their website and it includes holders for scanning 35mm negatives, 35mm slides, and 120 negatives.

Here's the link.

I pulled out a 4.5x6 120 negative from a bit back to test it, taken on Kodak Ektar 100 on a cloudy day.  Scan is at 1200dpi.  No tone correction (tone curve set to "flat").  Digital ICE turned on (Digital ICE is a technology that scans the negative/transparency again in long wave infrared to detect dust on it, then removes the dust from the digital image).  Here's the result:

12.8MB Uncompressed Bitmap Scanner Test (may take a minute to load)


----------

