Scanning Equipment for a Leica R

[peter_gale]

<p>I use a Leica R 6.2 camera, and usually shoot b&w film. I have recently been told that I can no longer develop or print this film at home. I can find a commercial outlet to do this. However, I am wondering what I may do that would avoid some or many of the traditional methods that I've been using (or a commercial outlet may use). I can imagine having the film processed to provide a set of 35mm negatives (some of which, on occasion, may be in colour).<br>

Is there a scanner now that can be used with these negatives? It would be a scanner that would generate a set of digitalized files that can then be used to create/print images that will continue to have the filmic character that I have had in the past with this Leica? Is this the way these days to look at this sort of 'strategy' or need?<br>

Any suggestions are welcome. However, for various reasons, I want to continue shooting film and do not want to switch to a total digital system. I will likely have to ask about a printer as well. But, for the moment, I am asking about scanners - unless you feel that the printer is something to concentrate on from the beginning. <br>

Thanks you.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Not being able to process my own black and white film would really cripple my ability to get the results I want from it. I always process my black and white film differently according to how I shoot it. Why can't you process your own film anymore?</p>

<p>Scanning is a different matter. I would just as soon have my film commercially scanned, because for me, <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00YlZu">scanning film is no fun</a> at all. </p>

[charlie_novice]

<p>Any experience reported will help me, too. The service bureau that develops my film also scans the negatives with a drum scanner. I'd like to know whether a home Plustek scanner, which is designed for 35mm negatives and slide film, does about as well - before sinking hundreds of dollars into one.</p>

 

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>I have recently been told that I can no longer develop or print this film at home</blockquote>

<p>Who told you this? Your Leica takes 35mm film. 35mm film is available in B&W, Color print, and color slides. You can buy small tanks and developing chemicals to home develop each of these types of film. Freestyle is a place where I get most of my film and chemicals.</p>

<p>http://www.freestylephoto.biz/index.php#</p>

<p>Your scanning requirements are harder to meet. Nikon, Minolta, and Canon have left the scanner market. Nikon was last to leave and the price of their used scanners are sky high.</p>

<p>Here is a site that tests various scanners.</p>

<p>http://www.filmscanner.info/en/QuatoIntelliScan5000.html</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_gale]

<p>Thanks to everyone for your responses. Let me say only that circumstances will not allow me to continue to process or print my film work in the traditional way I once used. The possibility of using digital equipment presented itself, although some may feel that the only way I might go is outside to a professional film lab. Nevertheless, I wondered if a home-based scanner now exists in 2011 that users were finding could really do a good job with a Leica R film negative. I subsequently print no larger than 8x10", and usually work in b&w. Any newer 35mm home-based printers to consider now (for b&w and/or colour)? Suggestions welcome. Thanks again.</p>

[frederick_joicey]

<p>Interesting reading for one who is about to buy his first scanner. The above posts have given me a bit basic knowledge about scanners. I am looking at buying either an Epson V600, or the CanonScan 9000, possibly. I would require the scanner for both 35mm and med. format, both slides and negs.<br>

I believe both the above models are simple to use, being basically plug-in with usb cable. Am I correct in that ?<br>

I have also been considering the Epson V600 and the Canon 8890, which I realise are no longer produced, so they would have to be second hand(and in good/excellent condition.) Any opinion as to acquiring 2nd hand, or should I go for brand new.<br>

Looking forward to recommends and points for and against.</p>

[dan_max1]

<p>To do justice to the Leica you need a scanner of commensurate quality. That means a scanner with sufficient resolution and dynamic range, like a Nikon 5000, 9000 or an Imacon, and you will have to wetscan or fluid scan. Do not expect to get Leica quality from a dry scanned cheap scanner. Go the the ScanScience web site to learn about fluid scanning.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Not too much choice these days, now that Nikon has withdrawn from the field! I had a Nikon Coolscan IV for years and recently replaced it with a Plustek OpticFilm 7600a Ai. I have only used it a few times, but the quality looks good. An Imacon would probably be a little better but at considerably higher cost.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>The fact that Nikon has withdrawn from the field doesn't mean their scanners are no longer available--there are always a selection of used ones around. You'll just have to pay a lot for them.<br>

Just like if you want a Leica R6.2. I think Nikon scanners are better-made than anything else, and a good investment even at inflated prices. If you decide you hate it, you can always sell it for close to what you paid.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Ilford XP2 is a great B&W film for C41 processing; and as far as the choice of scanner goes, the fact that you're shooting with Leica glass is far less important than how large you wish to print the final image. 8x10" can be handled more than adequately by an Epson V700 and perhaps a set of betterscanning glass plates.

[f_ph1]

<p>i agree with Jean-Yves.<br>

This is from a 4990 scan. Don't waste a lot of cash on an Imacon or Nikon scanner. Despite the conventional wisdom, the quality difference is<br>

not nearly as pronounced as many would have you believe.</p><div></div>

[frederick_joicey]

<p>F Ph, The result is impressive. I gather that the Epson 4990 scanner is discontinued, but they can be had second hand. I will keep searching and considering different makes. At the moment it looks between an Epson or a Cannon flatbed.</p>

[dhbebb]

 

<p><em>i agree with Jean-Yves.</em><br /><em>This is from a 4990 scan. Don't waste a lot of cash on an Imacon or Nikon scanner. Despite the conventional wisdom, the quality difference is</em><br /><em>not nearly as pronounced as many would have you believe.</em><br>

The difference between a Nikon and Imacon scanner is vast, but you certainly shouldn't spend the money if you can't see it - and you won't see it very much with a low-contrast subject like the one you have posted. I quote not from second-hand opinions but from my own experience when I say that I always felt my Nikon Coolscan IV was lacking both the Dmax capacity and ppi resolution I needed to get the scan quality I was looking for and that the Plustec I now have is noticeably better in this respect. Silver-based b+w negs are the ultimate challenge for scanners, particularly if at all over-dense. Furthermore, if Nikon can be so cavalier as to stop software support for Coolscan already, how much longer before spare parts give out?</p>

 

[peter_gale]

<p>Again, many thanks to all for your help. A number of dealers here in Toronto carry versions of several of the mentioned scanners (or current models), and I will now seek out their opinions in light of what you've all been suggesting. Various new Epson scanners seem available, and I will ask around about used items as well.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>This is from a 4990 scan. Don't waste a lot of cash on an Imacon or Nikon scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether a flatbed (any consumer flatbed scanner) yields acceptable results depends the amount of enlargement to print. An Epson 4490 is usable up to around 5X versus 10X for the Nikon. </p>

<p>At 10X, the intrinsic qualities of the specific film, how it's shot, developed (and of course the camera optics) become dominant. This is all that one can ask for from a scanner: the Epson can't provide it.</p>

<p>I have both an Epson 4490 and a Nikon 5000. I compared the two in <a href="00J1d2">this old thread</a>. In short, the following is a crop from the Epson:</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00J/00J1dA-33809584.jpg" alt="" width="497" height="497" /></p>

<p>and this is the same negative scanned on the Nikon:</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00J/00J1d6-33809484.jpg" alt="" width="497" height="497" /></p>

 

[john_williams38]

<p>The major challenge with many desktop film scanners is that the film is not at an equal distance over the entire surface from the lens (that is at a very shallow depth of field) so some areas of the resulting image are very sharp and others areas softer.<br>

Functionally, this is how an Imacon scanner is able to produce a sharp image over the entire film area compared to a conventional flatbed scanner operation with glass surface, or flat film carrier through a stationary imager.<br>

As of 2011, scanner price is no longer a concern as it was in the past (Imacon Flextight Photo or Hasselblad 343 were $4995 in 2007) and rental units are available for $250 per 7-day week --- ideal for capturing the entire detail of positive or negative film from your Leica, or other film-based camera.<br>

<img src="https://store.hotwire-digital.com/product_images/uploaded_images/Flextight-Photo-Hotwire-Digital.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The above is an Imacon Flextight Photo that scans small and medium-format film on the desktop; this model has a native SCSI connector, and for computers with Firewire connections, an adaptor is used to retrofit the SCSI to Firewire for connectivity. Typical full resolution scan takes about 8 minutes at 3200 pixels per inch, 16-bit capture.<br>

John Williams<br />Hotwire-Digital.com</p>