Need advice on a scanner

[rapyke]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>The photo group I belong to has decided to purchase a scanner, but, I have quickly understood that this is not necessarily a simple thing to do well - any help would be appreciated.</p>

<p>The device should, ideally, be able to scan B&W & colour (negatives and transparencies) and it would be a bonus to be able to do both 35mm and medium format (120, 220). It will be used by various users with varying ability levels, on one of several macs and potentially on PCs too, if someone wanted to work with their own laptop.</p>

<p>Our agreed upon budget is: up to $2,300.00 (us) or about 1,675.00 Euros.</p>

<p>Any suggestions?</p>

 

[eric_brody]

<p>Look at a Nikon 9000, or 8000, if you can. I have a Nikon 9000 and have made huge prints of excellent quality from both 35mm and 6x7 color and black and white film. The quality almost matches a drum scanner and they are MUCH easier to use. They are no longer made so are available used only. The Epson 7xx series are ok for medium format and larger but marginal for 35mm. There are also new scanners from Plustek about which I know nothing. Nikon also made 35mm only scanners of very high quality but they are available used only as well. Sadly the scanner market has not shown much activity in the days of digital.<br>

<br />You may also want to consider using a high quality digital camera as a scanner. A friend has used a Nikon D800 for transparency work with pretty good results, and, if you already have the camera, no need to buy anything. Good luck.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>You can start renting one to form an opinion on the (im)possibilities of several scanners. Scanning is not something you just start doing; there is a steep learning curve. When you're looking at filmscanners AFAIK Plustek and Pacific Image are the remaining ones - probably based on the same hardware.</p>

[pics]

<p>Film scanning is a technology in decline. It seems like most of the people who had a need to scan film did it in the mid 2000's and now it is a niche market (unfortunately for people like us). The best film scanners were made by Nikon but have been discontinued. Buying a Nikon Coolscan today means overpaying for a used item that may have some miles on it and no guarantee of product support in the long term. Reviews on the remaining makes of film scanners seem to be all over the place. At best they seem to be a compromise on what Nikon offered. Plustek makes one (8200i model I believe) that will scan 35mm and MF for around $2000. People do have their complaints about it however so I would research it extensively before spending that kind of money. I use a Epson flatbed to scan 35mm and MF (V500) It does an ok job for MF and a not so good job for 35mm. Epson's makes more expensive flat bed scanners that allow you to scan more film at a time and also allow for scanning of 4x5 sheet film. Whatever you buy, it mostly depends on what you intend to do with it, print, web display etc.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>The best investment is a Nikon 9000. Period.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>That budget would get you a drum scanner if you wanted… That would be a great item to share - actually quality scans…. beyond the quality that the Nikon can produce. If you don't want to do that I'd say get the Nikon or used Imacon/Hasselblad. Still, you might get more people joining if you had a drum scanner to share...</p>

 

[benny_spinoza]

<p>Your cost will cover the new Plustek Opticfilm 120. The Nikon 9000 is great (I owned one for several years), but is presently overpriced. Furthermore, Nikon does not service them, so if/when one breaks, you are in trouble. Plus (no pun intended), SilverFast is bundled with Plustek. In spite of what some might say, SilverFast is a great product. Upgrade to the SilverFast archive suite so that you can scan once into a raw file, and then process to your heart's content using the raw file only w/o a scanner attached. That is the best option because your scanner will be shared by your photo group.</p>

[roger___4]

<p>I have an Epson V700, for about 550 euro, which comes with Silverlight. You can buy one Vuescan Pro license for $40 when you agree not to use Silverlight anymore. For me this has been a very good investment, for scanning large quantities of slides and negatives. It can handle twelve slides or four 35mm or two 120 film pieces at once. For batch scanning that saves a lot of time, as you can start the scan for 12 slides or maybe 20 negatives in one go. I've scanned thousands of slides and negatives like this. If you scan only one or two photos, it won't matter.<br>

As to quality, reading the reviews, the Nikon has probably a slightly better result, but I cannot compare them. For me the workflow speed and price were more important. For old slides and negatives (1980s and before) you can see the grain details. Using 1990s slides, I see that film quality has improved a lot, with 6400dpi scanning and almost no grain.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>If you are serious about quality do not buy an Epson. I have one and they are wonderful proof scanners. Quick and cheap. However, for prints beyond 8x10 forget it. Also own a Nikon 9000. Its ok and definitely superior to the epson but its not Drum quality. I agree with Lenny Eiger. My very best work is sent out if I need a really large print. Expensive but worth it for exhibition. Even 645 format stuff can look stunning at rather large print sizes if the Drum Scan operator is skilled. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I haven't tried it, but if my bank account recovers from Xmas, I will probably get one of these in 2014:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The <strong>MULTIMAG SlideScan 6000</strong> provides a convenient way to digitize your old 35mm mounted slides with a high 5000 dpi resolution and 48-bit color depth. The scanner's slide carousel makes it easy to batch scan 50 slides in a single step - simply load your slides into the carousel or use one of the other compatible carousels, press the scan button and the SlideScan does the rest. At the highest resolution, the scanner takes up to 4 minutes to scan each slide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/872649-REG/Braun_034515_MULTIMAG_SlideScan_6000.html">link</a> to B&H offer with specs and all - it's USB2 which is a heck of a lot better than many older scanners do.</p>

<p>This is a current model. The long time at full scan becomes less of a problem when it can be done with large magazines of slides, and usually a mere 4000 ppi and 24-bit will be sufficient, even 2000 ppi for internet posts.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You need to understand what the group wish to achieve with a scanner. The problem you have with a group is that some people will want one thing and others something different and unless everyone is clear what the purchase is meant to facilitate, some will feel they haven't got what they thought they bought into.<br>

Its easy and quite cheap to get a scanner that will facilitate getting film photographs onto a computer screen and support small prints of proof size from 35mm and maybe 12" sq from medium format. Not only are those scanners quite cheap but they are relatively easy to learn. However if there are people whose desire for a scanner is based on making rather large prints from 35mm and MF its going to require something more expensive to buy and more arduous to learn and operate. </p>

<p>Equally do the participants understand that a scan-even a good scan - may require work in Photoshop or similar to get the colours and sharpness right for the purpose, and that it isn't just a question of putting an image through the scanner to get a print-ready ( or even screen-ready ) file? Sure the scan software pretty much always has settings to alter colour, saturation etc but that software is not as capable as Photoshop or similar. </p>

<p>You can expect some difficulties with your budget if you must have a film scanner that will handle both 35mm and MF film, and if you settle for a used film scanner you may well find that it doesn't work with some recent operating systems- and with a group I'd guess you will have a mix of operating systems in play. There needs to be someone in your group who understands all this and can brief the others on what needs to happen to get it to work in specific environments.</p>

<p>Frankly the simplest and least costly strategy to follow, and the one that will probably work most easily across environments, is to get a decent flatbed scanner such as an Epson. Unfortunately it is also the most limited in terms of what can be achieved with it, though it has the considerable advantage that most people can learn to use one independently. If you adopt a much more ambitious strategy such as a used drum scanner, a used Imacon, or a used Nikon Coolscan or Minolta, then the group is going to need someone who either has or is prepared to learn and disseminate the information necessary to get the machine working across the group and varying environments. The reward is better scans and a greater range of achievable purposes. </p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>is to get a decent flatbed scanner such as an Epson</p>

</blockquote>

<p>or one of the better Canoscan models - usually only hundreds of dollars, if that's a concern.<br>

See my review of my older dedicated scanner and a recent Canoscan flatbed at http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b9l6 where there is also some comment, maybe even informed.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Nikon 9000 if you can find one. Its bound to be used so that is a consideration.</p>

[rapyke]

<p>Thanks so much for all the great feedback! photo.net really is the best photo board on the Internet.</p>

<p>I maybe should have been a little clearer about our 'group'... we are a century-old, publicly funded organization in Sweden. Our goal and mission is to encourage photography as an 'art'. We do not do normal photo-club things, but we do try to make certain that we have equipment on hand that people cannot necessarily afford on their own - lighting systems, high-end Mac computers, projectors, printers (or, these days, contracts with local pro-shops to print at very low cost for members and for shows)...</p>

<p>This scanner will live in our offices and will be used by members in the presence of our tech-guru, or by 'trained' members to scan archival materials, etc. It will never be used as a 'drop by and use it as you like' sort of machine. We have Macs equipped with various processing software options, so, that side is no problem.</p>

<p>The Nikon is exactly what I had in mind when I started to look for a scanner, but the price on the british version of the 'big' auction site starts at more than we have in the budget for this and these are units shipped from Russia with no follow-up on the sale - just a bit too dodgy.</p>

<p>We will, in all likelihood, settle for the PLUSTEK OpticFilm 120, which seems to be the <em>only</em> viable option in the Swedish marketplace just now.<br>

<br>

As an aside, we are likely to inherit a drum scanner in the next year, so that should give us all the range we need into the foreseeable future.<br>

<br>

Again, thank you all for your fabulous answers and feedback!<br>

<br>

Happy New Year.<br>

</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>If you are serious about quality do not buy an Epson.</em><br>

I really don't understand this statement. I have owned an Epson Expression 1680 Pro flatbed scanner for ten years or more, the modern equivalent (probably better in some ways) is the Epson Perfection V750, and have used it for critical professional applications where I made 20" or larger prints from 120 material (6x6, 6x7, 6x9) and 4x5 sheet film. It was fine - the only problem was getting rollfilm flat and finding carriers that could do this. Of course Epson make a variety of scanners, ranging from low-end consumer items to professional - the one I have is great. No flat bed scanner works particularly well with 35 mm - a dedicated film scanner is always the better choice.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>"<em>If you are serious about quality do not buy an Epson.</em><br />I really don't understand this statement."<br>

David, I don't know you and I have no reason to say anything about you that isn't nice - and I don't want to. However, I do know the difference between and Epson scanner and a film scanner and a drum scanner. I scan professionally for a living, the scanner I use, an Aztek Premier, cost $40,000 new, and for good reason. There is a huge difference between a drum scanner and a consumer level flatbed. If you haven't worked with someone with a top-level drum scanner, then you can't know the difference. Epson makes nothing professional, quality is not part of their corporate culture - it's all marketing. Most folks don't realize that they don't actually make anything, they just resell things. <br>

<br>

A lot of photographers like to do things themselves, tinker about and tie things together with baling wire. It's all good. However, if I had any application that I considered "critical" I would start with the best quality scan and work from there vs starting with the worst quality scan and sharpening the heck out of it to get what I need.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Lenny. It seems almost that you're thinking that David Bebbington is promoting a view that an Epson flatbed is as good as a drum scan- and that isn't how I read his post at all. But it is to me at least clear that the scanner you need to buy relates to the tasks you require of it. If you want a scanner to make a passable scan for screen-based applications, or scans that will look good on a full page of even the largest books made by Blurb etc, or you have a need for prints from MF up to say 12-14" sq , then something like an Epson V700/750 is likely to meet your needs pretty well- even if it isn't as good as a film/drum scanner. And the size and nature of the application will mask not only the lack of real resolution but also the somewhat inferior shadow detail from the cheaper machines.</p>

<p>Personally I have had hundreds of photographs drum scanned and turned into large prints. Equally I've had hundreds of scans made on an Imacon to make medium sized prints and files for my stock agencies, and worked on nearly all of those files. Also I've owned a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for a few years . Now I own an Epson V700 which performs the bulk by volume of the scans I need and if I need larger scans then I put that work out to machines appropriate to my purpose. I can see a role for each of the scanner types I've had or have used. But the one that I struggle with most is the Coolscan or similar. Basically I'm happy with the Epson for the least demanding stuff, but if I want say a 16" square print from my 6x6 slides I'm thinking I can get a better scan from an Imacon, and up a further few inches and i'll want a drum scan. All this leaves a very small slot between where I think the Epson runs out and where I can start to see a difference in the output between a Coolscan and an Imacon. For me that gap isn't worthwhile to fill with a £2000+ investment- though sadly it took owning and using one to arrive at that view.</p>

<p>So despite the fact that I might not be happy pushing my Epson quite as far as David Bebbington pushes his ( and I do have a third party holder and AN glass ) I can still see a lot of sense in what he's saying, and I don't think that I (or he) confuse owning a piece of equipment with thinking its the best available. If someone wants to buy a 24" sq. print from me I'll be looking for as good a scan as I can buy. OTOH if I want to scan 100 slides for a book or a camera club lecture, I'll be reaching for the solution that will provide appropriate quality at effectively zero cost. </p>

<p> </p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>David, I don't disagree entirely. There is a purpose for every tool. If one is scanning for a small image, web, or a 6 inch ad, there's no reason to do a drum scan. However, if I was going to make a 20 inch print I wouldn't mess with it. Personally, for my work, I want an exceptional amount of quality in the print…. I lug around a large format camera, and why would I bother to do that and then put the negative on a less-than-stellar scanner?</p>

<p>There's a lot of folks that tinker with their scanners, use the AN glass, the dimes, to get the moist out of it, and by the time they spent all that time and energy getting it as right is it could, they could have gotten a used drum and gotten it much sharper, gotten a lot more tonality from the much-more-sensitive PNT's. I recognize there are people with different needs than me. I consider myself a serious artist. Others have commercial concerns, or are doing snapshots of their family. It is not less, just different. Everyone gets to use the tool that matches their needs, as they see it. I only step in and try and correct things when people tell me that one is the same as the other, because it isn't.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Try to make an effort and purchase a new Hasselblad Flextight X1 scanner.<br>

Advantages:<br>

1) Great scanner with virtual drum technology<br>

2) Unlike Nikon, they still manufacture and service it<br>

3) Scans are great<br>

4) Scanning itself is easy since the whole concept with this scanner is to perform Linear Scans where no adjustments are to be made in software. All adjustments are in the photo editing program of your choice.<br>

Disatvantages:<br>

1) None except perhaps cost</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Lenny, you say you do not know me, but if you had at least read my PN profile, you might have understood where I am coming from. My (present) interest in photography is reprinting my historical shots, mainly of David Bowie, for leading national and international galleries and museums and making art prints of my current work for display and sale. In both cases, I apply the highest professional standards - if I happened to forget what image quality is, I could in the case of the Bowie pix take out some prints made by Metro, the top London pro lab, and use these (or the wet-process prints I made myself when I had a darkroom) as a comparison. There is absolutely no question that I tolerate the supposed shortcomings of my scanner and printer because I don't know any better!<br>

HOWEVER :-) ... when it comes to your statements of fact, as opposed to your (apparent) insinuations, there is much on which we agree. If I was offering a scanning service for other people's material, which might be film which is overexposed, scratched, dusty, dirty or kinked, I would certainly prefer to have a scanner such as an Imacon which offers a dmax of 4.8 against the 3.6 of my Epson and also a fluid mount. Nothing else would make sense - I would have to admit defeat with quite a few problem images and would have to spend hours retouching (my own material is correctly exposed and developed and doesn't need any retouching!). It would probably take a lot to convince me that a true drum scanner is better than an Imacon, but this latter is the natural choice for a scanner that needs to handle everything you throw at it. Similarly, I find my Epson 3880 printer perfect for my needs - I don't really need prints bigger than A2, the quality is fine, the 3880 has a uniquely compact footprint for an A2 printer and I can use it for everything in my home office (including text, which ensures that it is used every day and there's no problem with head clogging). If I were offering a printing service for all comers, on the other hand, a 60" roll printer would be a much better choice - it would be crazy to turn away customers who wanted bigger than A2!<br>

There seems to be a problem with definitions of the word "professional". My Leica M4 and Rolleiflex T are unquestionably professional cameras, it could be argued that the M4 is the best all-mechanical 35mm rangefinder system camera in the world, but neither of these would be my first pick for general professional assignments - this would be my Canon 5D II. In the same way, I absolutely regard my Epson scanner and printer as being of professional quality, they are my first choice for what I need right now, but under different circumstances my choice would also be different, and I would in no way say that they would be perfect (or even appropriate) for everyone!</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>David, you are simply uninformed. The dmax of an Imacon is nowhere near the claims they made, in independent testing, its closer to 3.1. In fact, film maxes out at 4.6 so what did they use to test it on? It's bull. The professional scanning community at the Scan High-End group hashed this out and it turns out that the value is a theoretical value and not real. You also want to compare the Imacon's CCD sensor, to a drum's PMT. The CCD sensor will not compare. This is not my opinion, altho' I have tested it, but it is acknowledged fact. Further, a drum scan goes directly into the sensor and this means it doesn't take another trip thru a lens, with all the aberrations possible, etc. If you want to like your Epson, with its plastic lens, you are free to do so. Enjoy. However, you are expressing opinion to someone who does this for a living, has studied this extensively and talks these things over with other professional scanner operators, some much more technical than me. A drum scan will easily beat an Imacon. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David, you are simply uninformed.</em><em> </em><br>

Not so! I am describing equipment which is reasonably priced (within the OP’s budget) and perfectly meets my needs. At the same time I state quite clearly that the Epson scanner and printer are NOT what I would choose if I were offering a scanning and printing service to the general public. If I were to do this, then, as with every equipment purchase, I would spend as long as necessary comparing specifications (in particular a pseudo-drum scanner like the Imacon against a true drum scanner). <br>

What you are saying I am sure makes sense for the “high-end scanning community”, but I must remind you that the OP wants a recommendation for no more than $2300 – my initial feeling is that a drum scanner for this price would be second-hand with limited remaining service life and could be an expensive disappointment. If you have any ideas that would fill the OP’s parameters, I’d like to hear them – but please take it easy on the hot air!</p>

 

[lenny_eiger]

<p>David, the simple fact is this: drum scanners have been going for about $1500 on the used scanner market. That's for a Howtek 4500, arguably the best bang for the buck. One has to be very careful to make sure they are getting a working scanner, with a reasonable drum, mounting station and decent software. These come up online regularly. If you get it from someone who was using the scanner, they will often make a scan for you to test, and they will have all the necessary items. There are other good drum scanners, people are getting good deals all over the place as printing companies and labs phase out this service.</p>

<p>There are lots of people who express fear (not accusing anyone in particular of this) about mounting and using fluids, etc. These tasks are all as easy to learn as focusing an image under an enlarger. Once you know it, its very easy. There are lots of people around who can help you get set up.</p>

<p>In truth, since they're using small and med format, the Nikon would do well if they can get one in good condition. However, a drum is a drum, and it can be a lot of fun. Then they can also include everything up to 8x10 and get scans that are nice and sharp. </p>