Jump to content

Scanners for Medium Format


Hox

Recommended Posts

<p>I am in need of a new scanner, one good enough to scan medium format film and will give me an image that is good enough for print. Does anyone have any recommendations? I'm currently using the Epson V500, which is crap, no dual lens or anything. Here is an example, I lose a lot of detail: <a href="http://www.alexhoxie.com/Sara-with-the-trees">http://www.alexhoxie.com/Sara-with-the-trees</a></p>

<p>I was looking at the Epson V700 which sounds like it could help me with both medium format as well as 35mm and larger negs as well. Has anyone tried this scanner? How does it compare? Is there something better out there?</p>

<p>I've had my negs scanned at high quality res by local photo houses and got nothing back messy, shoddy work.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Alex</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had and might still recommend a Nikon 8000 or 9000. Now discontinued, they are hard to find, prices are usually high, and they are no longer supported by Nikon (i.e., you may need a computer with an older operating system to run the scanner). Plustek is coming out with a new medium-format scanner (will do 35mm as well), and the specs are reportedly very good; that's certainly something I would look into if I were in your shoes.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks stephen. I'll look into the Plustek! The Nikon sounds nice, but i don't know how much hokey software i'm willing to up with anymore. Epson's software isn't too great as it is, and is present day stuff.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have a V700 and I have owned the Nikon 9000 ED in the past. Additionally I have had hundreds of MF slides scanned on Imacons and on drum scanners. My opinion is this</p>

 

<ul>

<li>The V700 does a fine job with the 3rd party film holder and AN glass to make prints up to around 12" sq. If you want notably bigger prints than this, or prints above proof size from 35mm than you're going to need to use a film scanner. Which of the candidates Nikon 8/9000; Imacon; or drum scanner you need to use depends on how big you want the prints to be.</li>

<li>But you don't need to own a film scanner unless you need a large volume of bigger prints. For many people- including me- it is much more economic to own something like a V700 which covers a large majority of my scanning volume and then to send out the relatively few that must be better than the V700 can deliver to a scanning service depending on what my size/quality needs are. It can be pretty good value these days to buy in quality scans .</li>

<li>Though your experience to date hasn't been good, don't form a view that all externally-made scans are bad. You just have to find competent people using the right scanner, thats all.</li>

</ul>

<p>Not particularly relevent given my suggestions, but I never found a problem with Nikon scan or indeed Epson software. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unfortunately, what I can honestly answer is that, in my opinion, below Nikon Coolscans (that are not available as new anymore), there are no decent scanners. I have tried the Epsons, and I know somebody likes them, but I don't.<br>

I am the lucky owner of a Coolscan 9000, however I am aware that if it broke down, I would have no choice but the too expensive Hasselblad ones :-(<br>

Many people compare favourably Epson scanners to Nikons in terms of resolution. Their resolution is indeed good. However, the colour reproduction of the Epson is poor, as well as their ICE dust removal (the Coolscan does not introduce artifacts because they do visible and infrared in one pass).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here ya go -<br /> <a href="http://store2.microtek.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=180">http://store2.microtek.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=180</a><br /> I've got the M1 pro and it blows anything else on a flat bed platform out of the water. With the LED light source the M2 should be even better. This is from 35mm. Kodak Portra 160. Nikon 105mm F2.5 AIS<br /> <img src="http://blackburnforge.com/images/Image0264.jpg" alt="" width="768" height="960" /></p>

<p><img src="http://blackburnforge.com/images/Image0264q.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have to say that whilst I'm clearly aware of the limitations of flatbeds, I have not had difficulty recreating the colours of the original slides with some fairly simple work in Photoshop. I've done two websites and the prints for several (self-published) books using the V700 and the colours are fine. You do lose a little in shadow detail vs a film scanner but I haven't found that ever to be catastrophic. Where you do lose out, quite clearly, is on the ability to make big enlargements. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>While there is always the temptation to upgrade from present equipment and maybe yours is truly justified, looking to see if an improvement can be made with what you have may be worth looking into first, possibly just altering a technique or method of scanning.</p>

<p>I've come across some decent scan samples from an Epson V500 when I was looking to replace a Canon flatbed I have. The link below represents a sampling of V500 scans. Some are better than others, but may give an idea if your V500 is capable of doing better.<br>

http://www.flickriver.com/search/Epson+V500/</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the V500 and i reconize more les te results of the pictures in the response above, maybe even finer and sharper.<br>

Altoucht not in the biggest orginal format. Here are some examples of my scans.<br>

http://www.wietsedejong.nl/landscape-without-sole/</p>

<p>I would try experimenting with differend software or editing technique this could help a greath deal. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I had and might still recommend a Nikon 8000 or 9000. Now discontinued, they are hard to find, prices are usually high, and they are no longer supported by Nikon (i.e., you may need a computer with an older operating system to run the scanner).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most people are using Vuescan now instead of Nikon Scan, that works fine on modern hardware. The Nikons have Firewire ports only, no USB. On the latest Macs that do not have Firewire anymore you can use a "Firewire adaptor". I haven't used this, I am using older hardware with Firewire ports.<br /> Ferdi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Alex,<br>

After doing a lot of research on "affordable" medium format scanners here is why I chose the Microtek Artixscan M1 Pro - now superceeded by the M2 Pro:</p>

<ol>

<li>No glass between the film and the sensor. </li>

<li>AUTO FOCUS</li>

<li>High speed USB</li>

<li>Comes with SilverFast Ai Studio - arguably the best negative scanning software.</li>

<li>Comes with IT8 calibration target and ICC profiling tools.</li>

<li>Actually capable of delivering both the advertised 4800DPI and advertised 4.4D-range.</li>

<li>Comes with excellent film holders for 35mm, medium format and 4"x5".</li>

<li>Comes with a glass carrier for wet mounting up to 8"x10".</li>

</ol>

<p>Far as I know, unless you want to spend ~$3,000 on a used (with no manufacturer support) dedicated MF film scanner like a Nikon or Minolta or even more on an Imacon/Hasselblad the $850 price for the Artixscan M2 Pro is the best deal in town.<br>

The Epson flatbeds will have you scanning through glass, buying aftermarket adjustable film holders because the <strong>Epson doesn't auto focus</strong> and comes with fixed height film holders that suck goobers. AND you'll be stuck with Epson customer service - EEK! And I doubt you can get over about 2000DPI real resolving out of an Epson flat bed no matter what the numbers say. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Alex, the V500 has some real limitations, but I think it has practical uses. Especially for its very moderate cost.</p>

<p>I use a V500 for scanning medium format film. I like a print that's sharp enough, regardless of it's size, so that I can hold it right up close. With my V500, I get prints that satisfy me at a size of 6x the linear dimension of the film. That would be 12x12" for 6x6cm negatives or 12x18" from 6x9cm. This is the same enlargement that David suggests with his V700</p>

<p>Here is a <a href="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-12x18.jpg">sample file ready to print at 12x18" from a V500 scan of 6x9cm color negative film</a>. Judge for yourself if something like this matches your criteria for acceptable sharpness.</p>

<p>From everything I have read, the V700/V750 should be a significant step better resolution than the V500.</p>

<p>There was another long exchange about these scanners, with other sample files:</p>

<p> <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk</a></p>

<p>Thanks for the comments on the Microtek scanners. Sounds like an interesting possibility.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I'm currently using the Epson V500, which is crap, no dual lens or anything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's also <$130 shipped... at least a few months ago when I got mine. Not sure what you were expecting for <$130. None of my lenses or cameras sold for less than $130 new. I use the scanner for proofing purposes and for emailing pictures. I've gotten a few prints from it as well. If used correctly it's not <em>that</em> bad, but it is what it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here is an example, I lose a lot of detail: <a href="http://www.alexhoxie.com/Sara-with-the-trees" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.alexhoxie.com/Sara-with-the-trees</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well we can't tell how detailed the original was or what your scanning technique or Photoshop technique is. I'm not saying it's not a bad scan. I'm saying I don't know. There are way too many variables. Also what resolution are you scanning at? I've read anything over 3200 dpi is a waste and the only reason to scan at 3200 dpi is to then downsize to the true resolution. Apparently that works better than scanning at the true resolution to begin with. You can also consider an <a href="http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vb_mfholder.html">after market film holder</a> with height adjustment and ANR glass. <a href="http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/holderAdjustment.html">Here are some results from one persons test</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've had my negs scanned at high quality res by local photo houses and got nothing back messy, shoddy work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I submit that you did NOT have your photos scanned "at high quality res." That may have been what they said but given what I can accomplish with a lowly V500 I will not pay for any scans that are not done on a Drum scanner or similar.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am the lucky owner of a Coolscan 9000, however I am aware that if it broke down, I would have <strong>no choice but the too expensive Hasselblad ones :-(</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you can look at the <a href="http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/introduction.html">Plustek OpticFilm 120</a> which is supposed to be dropping in the fall. It is supposed to be better than the Coolscan 9000 and costs THOUSANDS less than the Hasselblad scanners. Actually if even 80% of the hype is true the Plustek OpticFilm 120 is going to make a lot of Coolscan 9000 owners cry. Someone just bought a coolscan 9000 on ebay for $4,800!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I am the lucky owner of a Coolscan 9000, however I am aware that if it broke down, I would have <strong>no choice but the too expensive Hasselblad ones :-(</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you can look at the <a href="http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/introduction.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Plustek OpticFilm 120</a> which is supposed to be dropping in the fall. It is supposed to be better than the Coolscan 9000</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be a reassuring thought but at the moment this does not exist, so we can't compare.<br>

So far I have never seen scanners reproducing properly the colours as well as the coolscan, or not introducing artifacts with ICE in low-contrast high-luminosity areas. I very much hope this is going to change and the Plustek is going to be a winner!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I currently use the Epson V750 for my medium format film and it does a great job up to 8X10. With the wet scanning function you can probably do 11X14, but I got to go with Tom on the Microtech M1/M2. I remember using those when I was in school and they were built like tanks unlike the flimsy Epsons.<br>

If you want to do allot of scanning and don't have the money for a Nikon, then the microtek is the way to go. This professional wedding photographer who was in my class used that scanner to scann some of her images. Her scanned images were then projected on a silver screen in class and nobody could tell the difference between that and true digital ! The only problem with the microtek is the Cutomer Service which is beyond lousy, or at least it was back then.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I bought my Artixscan M1 on eBay. It was new in a sealed box. Before bidding I called Microtek USA on the phone to ask about having the scanner serviced. <br>

They don't sell the M1 Pro in the USA due to some kind of licensing restriction, so I wanted to know if they could service the unit if I had a problem. The service rep told me that they had all the parts in stock and trained technicians. When I called, I didn't have to wait on hold to talk to a human. That was a big plus for me. I bought the 3 year Square Trade warranty since I don't get a manufacturer's warranty.<br>

Good news, the M2 Pro is sold in the USA. I has an LED light source, which is supposed to be better than the fluorescent tube. Other than that I expect the hardware is identical to the M1 Pro. <br>

Note, you will need considerable table space for this scanner. It has a 15" x 22" footprint. The film drawer pulls out of the front 19". </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It appears that in the North American(?) market, the designation is M-1/M-2. <br /> In Europe...and maybe Asia(?), the designation is F-1/F-2.</p>

<p>Is the bundled software exactly identical between the two scanners? <br /> Contact Microtek representatives in your area of the world directly.</p>

<p>http://store2.microtek.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=181<br /> http://store2.microtek.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=180</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It appears that Silverfast Ai Studio does not come with the newer units as it did the M1 Pro and F1 Pro. Could be that the folks at Silverfast have not yet updated their software to work with these units. For Windows I am running Silverfast AI version 6.6r2 on the M1 Pro. The latest version Silverfast 8.? is only available for the Mac platform on the M1 so far. <br>

A list of Microtek scanners supported by Silverfast<br>

<a href="http://www.silverfast.com/show/scanners-microtek/en.html">http://www.silverfast.com/show/scanners-microtek/en.html</a><br>

The Microtek "Scan wizard" software is OK, but not nearly as good at image restoration as Silverfast. I tried downloading and using Vuescan . . . seems designed for people who are computer illiterate and want the software to do the thinking for them. After 30 minutes of frustration I removed the Vuescan software from my system. <br>

The "Negafix" portion of Silverfast is incredibly granular in the amount of control you have when scanning negatives. For slides you can scan 16bit HDR and get everything that is on the film, then edit your levels, color balance, exposure corrections, etc. in Photoshop. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Marc gave us a link to the F2 Pro which is the M2 + Silverfast. In the fine print, it says the included software includes: "... <a href="http://www.silverfast.com/">SilverFast Ai IT8 Studio</a> ... IT8 CALIBRATION DATA CD."</p>

<p><a href="http://store2.microtek.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=181" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://store2.microtek.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=181</a></p>

<p>Tom, I have been confused about the different editions of Silverfast. Is this the desirable edition?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...