120 scanning: Kodak HR500 vs Microtek F1 vs ?

[simon_keitch]

<p>Hi all,<br>

My local lab uses an old Kodak HR 500 scanner for hi-res scans and I'm wondering whether to go with their scans or get a desktop scanner. They can process and scan a roll of 120 for £35 GBP but they only output in 8bit sRGB 5610px so I'm stuck as whether to go with their scans or invest in a desktop scanner. If I could warrant buying a Nikon Coolscan 9000 it would be an easier decision but I just can't justify the outlay, so my choice is either a Microtek Artixscan F1 or maybe even an old Coolscan 8000 if I can pick one up cheap enough although I'm a little worried about possible issues with old used digital hardware.<br>

I can't find a great deal of information about the Kodak HR 500 so I'm struggling to resolve whether I'd be better off investing in an F1 (which would pay for itself after 25 rolls...) and being able to scan in 48 bit 4800dpi and output in whatever colourspace I want, or going with the lab's scans with a scanner that potentially(?) will pull more details out of the negative than a flatbed despite the lower res/bit depth etc?<br>

Any advice greatly appreciated... </p>

[stb]

<p>From the few tests published, the Epson V750 is a much better scanner than the Microtek F1. From my personal experience I cant ell you that scanning medium format with the Epson allows for beautiful 16x20 prints, mybe more, but I have not seen any bigger print. I'd say more because I get good 12x18 prints from 35mm with the Epson. The Epson is made by a better company too. Epson has better support than Microtek, is in no danger of disapearing from a market and is supported by all scanner-related software.</p>

<p>The real world choices for scanning medium format today are Epson, Nikon, Imacon, Fuji and Creo, depending on your budget and needs.</p>

 

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>8 bit seems fairly shallow for color by today's standards. As mentioned above, the Epson V750 or it's less expensive cousin, the V700, do quite well with medium format and can be found on Flea-bay for a pretty good price, either new or used. Another terrific scanner, and the one I use is a Nikon Coolpix 8000. I use it for 35mm and 120 (6 x 4.5) but up to 6 x 7 or even 6 x 9 (I think) with the right holder.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>A couple of corrections; the Nikon is a Coolscan, not Coolpix, and is one of the best you can buy short of a drum or Imacon; Microtek left (and may have returned) to the US market, the op is in the UK, I do not know if they are active in the UK.<br>

The Epson V7xx is likely a significantly better scanner than the old Kodak. The caveat is that scanning has a genuine learning curve and is moderately time consuming.<br>

Good luck<br>

Eric</p>

[simon_keitch]

<p>Thanks for the replies so far. Staphane: do you have links to the V750/F1 comparisons you mention? The only direct comparisons I could find stated that the final scans were indistinguishable, but the F1 does have the glassless scanning and ships with Silverfast which is a big plus. I've also read that the Microtek scanners render colours and tones in a certain way that I find appealing.<br>

Scott: do you know if the Coolscan 8000 will run on a current OS (Snow Leopard?).<br>

Eric: Microtek are not widely available in the UK, but they do have a couple of distributors so I can get hold of one fairly easily.</p>

[stb]

<p>Simon, I have never seen any direct comparison. You can check <a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm">this</a> comprehensive review of the V-750 and Guy Tal has <a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0308/gt0308-1.html">tried</a> the M1. There are many other reviews of both scanners.</p>

<p>Glass or glassless does not amtter all that much. What matters a lot is focusing. The M1 is able to focus while the Epson has a fixed focus and relies on depth of field to get acceptable results. The M1 should be much better, it is not. The Epson is a much simpler machine that delivers very good scans for enlargements of up to 10x, and acceptable for me up to 13-14x. For the price, when you take the reliability and versatility into account, it is an extremely good deal. A Nikon will give you 18-20x enlargements and a better productivity.</p>

<p>Also, be careful, nearly everyone will tell you to get the V700 because it is cheaper and gives the same results. That is largely false with a bit of truth. The bit of truth in it is that the hardware is essentially the same and both will give you indistinguishable scans <strong>after calibration and with the same software</strong> . And that's what is often overlooked in the price comparison: contrarily to the V-700, the V-750 comes with the full Silverfast AI, an excellent calibration software and a full complement of IT8 targets. The price of the targets alone is close to the price difference between the 2 scanners.</p>

<p>The V-750 is really an excellent value, espacially combined with film holders from betterscanning.com.</p>

 

[simon_keitch]

<p>Thanks Stephane, I overlooked that the V750 does indeed ship with Silverfast AI, it's just that the F1 ships with the Studio version although I don't think that justifies the price difference alone. </p>

[eric_brody]

<p>I run a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with Leopard. I have not yet tried it with Snow Leopard. It's not the scanner anyway, it's the software. I'm not at my main computer to check which version of Nikonscan I am using with my 9000 but am reasonably sure it's the most current version for the Mac.<br>

Eric</p>

[paulh]

<p>What you'll be happy with will depend on (amongst other things) your subject matter and printing size. The <a href="http://www.lfphoto.info">Large Format Photography</a> site has a scanner comparison.</p>

<p>Having said that, the Epson V700/V750 is a very good scanner for the money. You may want to purchase an aftermarket holder like those from betterscanning.com to get the optimum results, and get some ANR glass to ensure the negative is held as flat as possible.</p>

<p>If you are prepared to go the second had route, also look for a Minolta MultiScan Pro or Polaroid/Microtek 120. If you look around a bit and have a decent enough amount of space, you may even find an old drum scanner for less (there have been two or three on our local auction site recently going for less than a V500).</p>

<p>I'm more than satisfied with my V700. For those one or two special images where you may want a larger enlargement or you want every last bit of detail, you can always send them out for a drum scan.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>As the previous post implies, you can't make the right decision on scanning - or get the right advice on scanners- without saying what you want to use it to do. For example if you want to make quality large prints then a desktop flatbed won't do the job well, and indeed they don't perform anywhere close to their published resolutions. There's lots of threads on Photo.net to that extent. There are no scanners that perform like a drum scan or Imacon but which cost a couple of hundred pounds or so- otherwise the top end of the market would disappear overnight.</p>

<p>If, OTOH you want a scanner to help you view your shots on screen, put on websites and so on then a Coolscan or any other film scanner is overkill. </p>

<p>I suspect that the best solution for many people, as it is for me, is to buy and use a flatbed for the majority of scans where the object is on screen or small prints, and to pay for a drum scan or Imacon scan when you know you want to make more critical use of a frame. You can get Imacon scans in the UK from about £6/7 , sometimes including hand cleaning in Photoshop rather than using software that influences sharpness somewhat- and if I want to make a print of any significance then thats what I'll do; but I'm pretty content with the V700 for most other purposes from MF film. I do have the Betterscan holders/AN glass to improve the focussing somewhat.</p>

<p>I have been there, done that, and sold it with a Nikon 9000, which I didn't find particularly slick to use. Sure it gave me decent scans, but for 90% of my purpose was overkill.</p>

[david_waugh3]

<p>Simon... I feel your pain :-) I've been agonising over the same thing for ages but did end up buying a V700. Really I am just biding my time (and improving my photography) until I can afford/justify the 9000. I really do think the V700/750 is fantastic value for money, but if it were me personally I'd use the lab until you raise the bucks for the 9000. It does run on Snow Leopard BTW. </p>

<p>Anyway - the HR500 is actually a wonderful scanner. So are a lot of the Frontier scanners. The issue (as always) is the operator, the lab's calibration and workflow. At that price of course, you can't expect custom scanning, but you can generally work a bit with the lab and tweak until you are happy. Despite the 8-bit sRGB, it will (probably) give you better DR and sharper scans for way less hassle than the Epson. I am not dissing the Epson - it's a fantastic scanner, but it's a $700 scanner.</p>

<p>Much depends on the amount you plan to shoot v Epson cost. You may still find it best to go with a V750 - at least for the meantime. But for what it's worth, the HR500 is an awesome mid-level scanner (from memory they went for something like 40K but I may be way off!) I had a look at your website and you are obviously an extremely accomplished photographer (fantastic pics mate) - you really need to wait for the 9000. The difference from the Epsons is large. The difference again to say an Imacon is not THAT much. Then you'll want a Topaz... </p>

[simon_keitch]

<p>Thanks David; my lab told me they paid £34000 GPB for the HR 500 around five or six years back so you're certainly correct in saying it's a good scanner; although I think the design emphasis was on productivity rather than absolute quality. Right now all of my professional work is done on digital and while I don't see that changing to any significant degree I have been wanting to get back to shooting film for some time (like anyone who started in the darkroom I can't help romanticizing about film regardless of how much I like digital) but also as a means to move into medium format for the extra detail over 35mm digital. In my ignorance I didn't know how difficult it would be to capitalize on the detail held in a MF negative and with my Nikon D3 producing incredibly clean 14 bit RAW files at 4256 pixels wide, the Hasselblad scans need to produce files with a significant advantage over the D3 files...<br>

So, I've bought a Nikon Coolscan 9000. :)<br>

I was looking at a 8000 but it sold for more money than I think is worth spending on any piece of digital equipment that's the best part of a decade old, and then a used but mint 9000 came up for a reasonable price so I bit the bullet. I almost ditched the desktop route completely in favour of a develop and (lo-res) scan from the lab and then hi-res Imacon scans of the selects only via mail order, but that puts the total turnaround at approximately two weeks which would remove the option of using film for most assignment work.<br>

The 9000 hasn't been delivered yet so I guess I've got a big learning curve to look forward to (and a new headache; whether to buy Silverfast...).<br>

Thankyou for all the responses; I really appreciate it.</p>