Scanner with Medium Format Ability

[americanswan]

We don't always get what we want. I sure would like a new scanner to help with

my medium format film work. My empty pockets dictate otherwise at the moment.

 

I have seen a few reviews on scanners on this site. I think it would be helpful

for beginners like myself if we had a simple starting point when it comes to

scanners. For example,....

 

"mf top notch",

"mf adequate",

"35mm only".

"don't consider it"

 

Could I get some feed back on various scanners you have used and which of the

above four categories it would fit in. Also if you could list price that would

be cool.

[eric_brody]

The Nikon 9000 is the top of the top notch, unless you can afford and want the hassles of a drum scanner or an Imacon. None of the flatbeds, even the good Epsons such as the 700 and 750 come close tho they are decent.

 

Eric

[americanswan]

Just for reference, how much is the cheapest drum scanner?

[americanswan]

I am going to gather then that Drum scanners and the Nikon 9000 are in the "MF top notch" category and the Epson's, like the 700 and 750 are in the "MF adequate" category. Does everyone agree with this?

[stp]

Generally, I think that's a fair statement. Drum scanners are better described as the

top top category, but they are very expensive with a steep learning curve. I think

Imacons are between a true drum scanner and the Nikon 9000, but again they are

relatively expensive. The Nikon 9000 is great, but a used Nikon 8000 is not much

different and can be significantly cheaper. The Epson V700/V750 are very good

flatbed scanners, and the new ArtixScan M1 flatbed scanner from Microtek got a

very good review in the June issue of Photoshop User.

 

I have the Nikon 8000 and absolutely love it. I also have the Epson V750 for large

format, but I'm giving up LF because the scanner doesn't do LF justice (IMO); I'd

rather stick with MF and a much better scanner. I think a used Nikon 8000 is

roughly the same price as a new Epson V750. Between the two, the 8000 will run

circles around the V750 (again, IMO).

[americanswan]

Penland, Do you think an Epson V700 would be adequate for a weekend warrior type photographer hobbyist like myself???

[blarg_.]

I have an Epson V500. Paid less than $200 for it and think it does a great job, especially if you get the glass negative carriers from betterscanning.com.

 

Flatbed negative scanners tend to do a much better job on MF film than on 35mm, which works well for me because since I picked up MF, I hardly use my 35mm camera. If your main focus is 35mm, you'll get better results from a dedicated 35mm scanner, but then you don't get MF capability, and dedicated 35mm scanners worth having are pretty expensive.

 

The Epsons do a great job on MF, an adequate job on 35mm and for the price you really can't do better. They do 6400 DPI optical resolution, 48-bit color and 16-bit B&W. The 700 is nice, but for a weekend warrior I think you might be spending more than you really need. Unless you're going to do wet scans, get the V500. If you don't care that it takes a while for the light to warm up, get the older 4490 - it's the same as the V500 but with CFL illumination rather than instant-on L.E.D's and can be had for about $100.

 

Also, if you're running 64-bit Vista and want to use 3rd party software, I believe Silverfast AI works with the 4490, but not the newer V series. Personally I just use the software that came with it - works fine for me.

[americanswan]

Blarg Thanks for the info. Believe it or not, the V700 is like $500 in South Korea and the 4490 which is like $150 in the states is $370 here.

 

This thread wasn't designed for my wants or needs exactly, but anyways, which do you think I should do considering South Korean prices?

[americanswan]

What are "wet scans"?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Info on wet scans:

 

http://www.weaved.net/wet.htm

 

http://scanscience.com/

[john_stockdale2]

"wet scans" are scans made with negatives (or slides) that are immersed in liquid in a special holder. The advantage is that surface imperfections disappear and in some cases it can enable a much higher quality scan. Photo Techniques a couple of months ago had an article that had a good example.

 

The downside is that it takes quite a while and is somewhat messy.

[sfcole]

Wesley,

Just because you're a "weekend warrior" doesn't mean you don't have high

standards!

 

I think choosing a scanner comes down to A. size of print and B. nature of the photo

itself. I was lusting after a Nikon 9000 but couldn't see sinking $2000 into one, so I

use an Epson V500. So far, prints up to 11x17 look great. In fact, I compared my

scans to a profession service that uses the 9000, and at 8x8 I could see no

difference with t-max 100. So if you make relatively small prints, you may not need

an expensive scanner. However, I have found that the V500's weakness is in

shadow detail. While most of my photos aren't a problem, I do get the occasional

one where it can't get every last bit of detail. 90% of the time, that's not an issue,

especially with B&W films. The one annoyance I've found with the Epson is that the

MF film carrier only allows you to make 2 scans at a time, which take more time

because my strips are always in 3's.

 

I think the flatbeds are best for small prints, and for proofing: if I need an really large

prints, I'll just have someone else do them.

[rgeorge911]

I have the Epson 4990 flatbed. I agree that it's not great with 35mm, but MF, even 645 is pretty darned good.

 

I was also lusting after a 9000, so I rented one for the weekend ($75). I scanned a huge number of images, and was impressed. However, not impressed enough to buy one. I will probably rent it a couple of times per year for the images that I may want to print over 13X19 (my max home printing size). At that size, the Epson 4990 does pretty well with 645 transparencies and negatives.

 

Reed

[kip_peterson]

I've posted a link that might interest anyone reading this thread. I think we've all been

where the original poster is--wondering how to get the best quality scans from our film.

The Nikon 9000ED and others often get mentioned, but I feel they are all

compromises. Here is a <a href="http://web.mac.com/kip/scans" >link</a> to what I

ended up with, and I think it will be quite enlightening. Enjoy!

[americanswan]

Thanks so much Stockdale, Cole, and George for the very helpful responses.

 

It just goes to show that purpose is very important. Digital, 35mm, MF all don't matter if after 6 months it's sitting on some self waiting for next years Christmas party or the child's next birthday. It does no good and cost don't matter at that point. We'll see what happens after six months of me and my "toy camera". I keep my camera quite near by and ready to go but I work a lot of hours and am only able to really "search" for shots on the weekends with my children tagging along. I guess because I won't be charging through roll after roll of film I should take a wait and see approach. Maybe around November I'll get a V700 if I am still gung-ho about this. I never see myself going nuclear. Photography will just stay a hobby of mine.

 

Right now I am not getting a lot of shots per roll that I feel I can share with my family. Mastering night and indoor shots with this camera is a bit of a hassle for me at the moment, but I am not giving up.

 

I'm one of these guys who doesn't like to follow the crowd. So using a 120 Diana in a country where it is hard enough to find a 35mm camera is a lot of fun for me. Everyone has large, heavy, digital monsters they think are some kind of social status. This urge to be different and unique is directing me to consider getting a TLR Seagull in the future to play with and just to be different.

 

For now I am not going to buy anything. I am just going to keep plugging away at this Diana and see what I can get out of it. I have 4 or 5 novice pictures now that I am proud of. They look nice and artsy to me at least.

[sfcole]

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/4509304_envFS#265754755

[blarg_.]

Scott, the glass neg. carrier from betterscanning.com allows you to scan all 3 frames of a 6x6 strip and all 4 negatives of a 6x4.5 strip. Yet another reason to get one.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Kip - The Nikon resolution and shadow detail look pretty decent, but the colors appear off (or at least very different). What film did you use? And how did you adjust the colors?

[emmajanefalconer]

I have the Canon 8600F, it cost me ﾣ120 in the UK, and I'm very happy with it. I scan a lot of cross-processed stuff, and the scanning software handles it well. It also comes with Silverfast, which sets up film channels for the scanner, but I never use it. I usually just use the Canon software and turn all the "auto-tone" "auto colour" etc stuff off. I find that you get better results choosing "b&w negative" "colour scan" than using the colour negative mode for some reason. Good results overall though, and the scanner is reliable.

[jon_shiu]

Hi, I use a Diana camera also. You don't need a high-end scanner to scan toy camera pictures. An older used scanner such as a Epson 3200 Photo ($50-100 in the USA) would be fine.

 

Jon

[miklosphoto]

Hi Wesley,

actually I had four different scanners in the past. Two of them are only 35mm film scanners so I am not going to talk about those.

I used to have the Nikon Coolscan 9000 which is the best film scanner for MF.

There is nothing about it what I could complain about, except the price but that is not an issue anymore because I sold it and lost maybe $150 only. Scanned my old film stock (around 100 rolls) at the highest quality.

Then recently started to shoot a lot of film again and decided that want to scan MF again but can't afford to buy that scanner again so bought the Epson V-750 and so far can't complain. Also, recently I got a found a lot old photos from my parents and my wife's parents too, so I happy to have the flatbed for that reason too.

As for the MF, I did not make any "scientific" compare between the old scans made on the Nikon and now on the Epson, simply because the result I am getting on the Epson looks good to me. Very soon will try to do the wetscanning too, another reason why it is good to have the Epson.

For what you described it seems to me that the Epson will do a great job for you.

Miklos

[p_b_]

The Nikon 9000 handles color negative film better than the 8000. That's what I read somewhere and that has been my experience with the 8000 and 9000 that I used.

[User_503771]

I'm one of those who couldn't afford the 8000/9000. I've been using an Epson 4870. I read up about the focus height issue and shimmed my film holders; one of these days I'll get the betterscanning.com gizmos.

 

I recently got a Nikon 4000 and had it overhauled at Nikon (it was DOA from an eBay guy who wouldn't do anything about it...). It works great! 35mm only of course.

 

But I mention it because I've compared scans from the same negatives.

 

I've found that if the Epson is very carefully used, it can give spectacular results, even in 35mm. There's multi-sampling -- this makes a big difference.

 

I also bought Vuescan Pro and use that with the Epson; this has made a nice difference when scanning MF negs.

 

If I were you I'd try to figure out a way to buy from the US or other country where the pricing might be a bit better, and see if you can figure a way to cut the shipping cost. Epson often has very nice deals on refurbished scanners, too -- that's where I got mine and it works beautifully. (Not sure about warranty, etc. issues though.)

 

You could also cut costs by getting one of the older models, like mine (the 4870) or ideally, the 4990 which has a bigger light lid (you never know, maybe you'll decide to run around with a view camera!).

 

On reason is that if you start going above 3200 dpi with medium format, you'll run up huge file sizes, and for no real gain in print quality.

 

Just my random thoughts.

[americanswan]

Hendrickson How large of a print can a person make with that 3200dpi scan MF?

[miklosphoto]

Wesley,

with a conservative 300dpi print you'll get 24.5" by 24.5" prints, considering you are scanning a 6x6 MF. Here is the calculation:

6cm = 2.3"

at 3200dpi 2.3" = 7360 pixels

7360 / 300 = 24.5"

 

Now, at that large print size you can easily print at 250 dpi, which gives you even bigger 30x30" prints.

Miklos