35mm Scanner for B&W

[razvan_rosca1]

<p>Hi everyone, I am a amateur photographer looking to buy a scanner for my film work. I shoot only on 35mm B&W and I would like a flatbed or dedicated scanner which would do a decent job within the pricerange of 300$. I am not intrested in slide or color so I don't mind having lower performance within color and stuff. I used before a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (which I didn't own) and I was really impressed with the quality. Now, I don't want the same quality for 10% of the price but I don't want 10% of the quality either. :) <br /> <br /> The brands I can find in shops here are Canon, Epson, Plustek, Nikon and that's about it.<br /> Based on your experience with scanners which model from this brands would you recommend ? Is Plustek good ? Since the specs look good...<br>

Do you know any site specialized in testing flims scanners so I can see some results ?</p>

<p>Thank you,<br>

RAZ</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Epson flatbed or a new Plustek or other used film scanner would be good options. I have a Minolta Dual III that was very cheap used and I've had some good results with B&W. It doesn't have ICE but you can't use ICE with B&W anyway.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Used Nikon CoolScan IV or better. But, assuming you are in the USA, be sure it wasn't grey market, as Nikon USA will not repair grey-market units for love or money. Although with a $300 budget, you may have to take a grey market one, and take your risk with the need for repairs.<br>

Service could be an "issue" with used Canon or Minolta film scanners, although they were very fine products.</p>

 

[jim_z]

<p>Quite satisfied with my Plustek scanner. I have successfully scanned and had lab-printed to 16x20 from some old Panatomic-X negatives (ISO 32) and 11x14 from old Tech Pan negatives (didn't try 16x20 from these but from the 11x14 results a 16x20 would be fine). It almost has too much resolution - you find a lot of little scratches and bits of garbage embedded in the negatives that you couldn't see (and in fact this stuff didn't show in the 11x14 wet prints I made from these negatives back in the late 70's). Lot's of retouching, well worth it though. </p>

<p>jZ</p>

<p> </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p><a href="http://img514.imageshack.us/g/antiquecar1.jpg/">http://img514.imageshack.us/g/antiquecar1.jpg/</a><br />All images, Kodachrome 200 and a few Kodachrome 64, scanned on a Plustek OpticFilm 7200 at 7200 and reduced to approx. 25K jpegs saved for the web in Photoshop. I used the bundled Silverfast SE in 48 bit HDR color and adjusted levels in Photoshop. Some dust removal in photoshop on the wind surfers and hovering bee, color hue adjusted on katydid in petunia blossom. No other adjustments were made. Good bang for the buck.</p>

[dpbours]

<p>Go for a second hand Minolta Dimage Scan Elite, or Dual IV.<br>

I used it for B/W. It's great. I only use an epson 750 flatbed for my 6x6. My African black and whites of Angola and Nigeria are scanned with my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925812</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[kasperhettinga]

<p>I really like my plustek 7200. I'm not very happy with its colour result, but for B&W it is very nice...<br>

I use it at 3600dpi as more doesn't seem to improve the picture. I use it combined with VueScan. I've done print up to 30x45cm (11x16 inch) which came out really nice.<br>

<img src="http://foto.clanmackay.nl/backup/jun09/content/bin/images/large/12.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Well for that price I can't comment. As I use an Epson V700 that cost a little more but the V500 is in that range. However if you never plan on getting past 35mm then the Used Nikon or the Plustek with VueScan. I don't think that it has ICE but if you stay with B&W you will be fine. Also check as I am pretty sure that your operating system is a key to the Plustek..</p>

 

[h._p.]

<p>I find that the Plustek 7200 suits me well. Oddly enough, though, I just bought one of these yesterday: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/summit_photofix_sp5/<br>

...a Coolscan it isn't but, at 5 seconds a shot, it <em>is</em> a very fast way to get your negs into the computer. You can then do 'good' scans when time permits, which takes us back to the classical way of proofing on a contact sheet and later selecting the shots to enlarge.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Wonder what the DMAX is on it? I have seen these sold under many names. but the 110 film holder is nice as I like to shoot 16mm.</p>

[brendan_campbell1]

<p>Here's a sample scan from a 35mm Ilford XP2/ Nikon Coolscan V. If you use chromogenic b&w film like Ilford XP2 then you can also use ICE. This was very easy to scan and has good tonal range.</p>

[brendan_campbell1]

<p>oops - here's the image </p><div></div>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>Shop around, you never know what you'll find. A few months ago I sprung for a new Epson 750 scanner (which I love). The very next day I was shopping around in a used office equipment store and came across a used Epson 4970 scanner with film holders, paperwork, and software for $10. I bought it on impulse, found that it worked beautifully, and then sold it to a friend.</p>

[razvan_rosca1]

<p>Thank you for your responses and photo samples. I will first go and take a look at plustek scanners to see how they feel like. Coolscan V looks really nice, I will check that out as well<br>

Thank you again !<br>

RAZ</p>

[jpscherrer]

<p>After a lot of reading, I ordered I finally received my Reflecta CrystalScan 7200 ! It came bundled with CyberView X ! I spent a few hours yesterday trying to get satisfying results with it, but... no way ! This program is, as one might expect for a "free" thing, just not worth it !<br /> <br /> ...I knew from the start that I would have to get an external software for good results and I was balancing between the two -known as the BEST scanning programs- Silverfast Ai and Vuescan ! After reading a lot -and checking the PRICES- I went for Vuescan ! I installed it in less than 5 minutes, inserted a piece of negative (that I had previously given to a "photo labo" to scan, and which came out VERY BAD) and..... voila !<br /> <br /> Here's a screen-copy of the 2 scans, side-by side (thanks to Faststone "compare images" thing)... On the right, the scan from the photo-labo and on the left the one from my scanner ! These have only been resized ! What a difference ! I was pi$$sed-off at first with Ilford XP2, thinking the film gave NO details in the shadows and highlights... but when PROPERLY SCANNED... much better !<br /> <br /> As usual, clicking into the image will show the original uploaded size of 1605x1000 pixels !<br /> http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/120306288/original.jpg<br /> <br /> Tech datas:<br /> Negative was 35mm. ILFORD XP2<br /> The photo-labo scanned it at 3120x2075 pixels (3.23 Mb)<br /> I scanned it at 5105x3392 pixels (16.5 Mb)<br /> <br /> Cheers,<br /> J-P.</p><div></div>