Scanner recommendations 6 x 7 negs

[george_doumani]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>after years of digital I am dusting off my Mamiya 7II (+ N 65mm f/4) and putting some Portra through it after viewing the beautiful results I have seen online.</p>

<p>I am looking to buy a used scanner capable of giving me very good results. I am looking at a used Flextight Photo which I believe is only SCSI which will be a nightmare as it was back then and will be now. I am running a Macbookpro and OSX 10.9.4 with only USB, Thunderbolt and Firewire ports.</p>

<p>Can anyone recommend a good scanner please that will handle up to 6 x7 cm negatives? Please remember I want exhibition quality results printing up to A3+.</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>George</p>

<p> </p>

[mac_hordam]

<p>It's often easier/cheaper to get an old, dedicated to scanning, computer for these "legacy" scanners.</p>

<p>Otherwise your options are pretty much Nikon 8000/9000, Minolta Multi Pro, other Flextight/Imacon/Hasselblad or drum scannners. Budget and availability will determine which is best.</p>

[george_doumani]

<p>thanks Marc,</p>

<p>great idea to maybe pick up an old G4 with a scsi card. I do remember though how unreliable that transfer protocol was. I think maybe a "modern" scanner may be the way forward?</p>

<p>However a Flextight/Imacon/Hasselblad up to date model seems extremely expensive in comparison.</p>

<p>Anyone?</p>

<p> </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Depends how many prints that size you want. Its certainly the case that a consumer flatbed from Epson or Canon is marginal at best when it comes to reliably producing scans to support exhibition quality prints at your size. If you only need a few, then getting these from a lab made on a Nikon 9000, Flextight or even a drum shouldn't be ruled out. Personally I own a decent flatbed for web/blurb books etc. but buy in the smaller volume of better scans I need for prints and stock agencies.</p>

<p>From a number of viewpoints I wouldn't cast a vote for a scanner that requires an ancient computer to support it- just looks too temporary, too difficult, and too space-consuming for me.</p>

<p>There are contemporary film scanners around and used versions of the Nikon 9000 series though these latter are expensive and not supported by Nikon now? I guess Plustek and Pacific Image are the names to look for now though I have no experience with either. There's a reasonable range of threads talking about these . </p>

<p> </p>

[danield]

<p>Well, the cheapest solution nowadays for film scanning is to use a digital camera (sounds like you have one)? You can give that a try - provided the camera produces A3+ quality output. And even if not, you can experiment with high magnification macro and photo stitching...<br>

<br />Or alternatively, outsource the scanning to a professional shop and avoid investing into hardware.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Nikon scanners (Coolscan 8000 or 9000. Both are good.) still are the go-to solution for these situations. They are not the very best you can get (a good drum scanner would be. Flextights are also great, but rather expensive), but very close, just about affordable, and practical.<br>Nikon doesn't produce these machines any more, but that does not mean they no longer work, nor that they aren't serviceable. And despite reports to the contrary, the software can be made to work on recent versions of operating systems (and if too much trouble, or if not with any future incarnation of operating systens, you can always switch to third party software).<br>They have a firewire interface, so you need a computer sporting a 1394 port. Though i have made sure i can attach the Nikons to any of my computers, i too have a dedicated 'scan station'. An older (hence cheap), fast enough computer used for not much else but scanning.

[michael_darnton2]

<p>I'm with Daniel, if you have digital stuff. I use my D300 Nikon and macro lens, which yields 300ppi at A3 size. That should be good enough. It certainly is better than a flatbed, though only marginally--this I know through actual experience. 4x5 is where flatbeds win over a 12Mp camera. If you throw a more contemporary 24Mp camera at the job, it would bury a flatbed.<br /> How to do it: <a href="

[bgelfand]

<p>If you will use an old computer just for scanning, you are not restricted to a Mac. Since it is for scanning only, you could purchase an old Windows machine.</p>

[george_doumani]

<p>thanks everyone for your input.</p>

<p>I've decided to avoid an old computer with a SCSI interface just because I know it will be a nightmare. </p>

<p>Concerning the suggestion to use a high end DSLR to take photos of the negs I am yet to see anyone do this that produces results that are comparable to a dedicated high end film scanner.</p>

<p>My options are either to outsource the work and get it done at a lab or to find a semi cheap "in house" solution. I am eying off an Epson V700 as I have heard with third party neg holders one can get very good results with a little tweaking. Any user experiences with that combo or anything similar please would be much appreciated.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"Please remember I want exhibition quality results printing up to A3+"</em><br /> <br /> Does this mean you will be exhibiting or selling the prints or is it a target for your own satisfaction? I ask because you may just find with careful technique and persistence and a growing familiarity with the scanner and software that a flatbed might just tip you over the line if it's for your own eyes. i.e you might tolerate a slightly lower quality result than a dedicated film scanner would produce as the trade off for a lower cost outlay and easier availability, even maybe a new one.<br /> You could give the V700 a try, if it's 2nd hand you might get your money back on reselling it if you're not happy. I've used an Epson 4870 flatbed and a Nikon 8000 and the 8000 was certainly the better of the two but I wasn't that enamoured of the Nikon despite that. I have the Minolta Multi Pro now which I find a little more user friendly than the 8000 and quality wise the two are close. But they're getting old now and they're also not cheap (compared with flatbeds)<br /> <br /> If you've never done any scanning before I'd suggest dipping your toe in to the flatbed end, you might find it too cold and want to remove your toe quickly.</p>

<p>Look up one message there are new flatbeds. That could mean cheaper old ones or better new ones.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>When you specify this quality it changes things for me. More often than not, exhibition prints come from scans made with drum scanners. Especially with smaller film. This category indicates "uncompromising quality, the best there is, regardless of effort or cost." That would be a drum scanner. If this isn't what you meant, that's another matter...</p>

<p>I am a Mac guy who pretty much hates PC's. Still, I use an older PC to run my scanner (with an Adaptec 2930 card). Worse things can happen to a person... </p>

[danield]

<blockquote>

<p>Concerning the suggestion to use a high end DSLR to take photos of the negs I am yet to see anyone do this that produces results that are comparable to a dedicated high end film scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here are a few people that tried<br>

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/<br>

and<br>

http://www.trippingthroughthedark.com/scanning/scanning-35mm-black-and-white-negatives-with-the-d800e/<br>

And remember this is 35mm film.<br>

From my point of view the results can match dedicated consumer scanners (aka Minoltas, Coolscans, etc), but flatbeds like V700 are left behind. And sure, a Hasseblad Flextight will probably be better but not many can afford that.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p>There's another question that could be asked. Here goes.</p>

<p>If the OP wants exhibition quality prints, only wants them up to A3+ size and is put off by the cost of the higher end scanners and has been using digital for years why not upgrade the digital side of equipment to a later camera that would give those results with far less bother?.</p>

<p>Scanning is one of the least rewarding sides of photography in terms of cost, quality, time and effort. So instead of dusting off the old film gear the easier way forward might be a digital upgrade.</p>

<p>And a further heresy, selling the Mamiya 7 would go a long way to funding the new DSLR.</p>

<p>Another thought re the use of a high end DSLR to "scan" the negs. Why would you use a film camera to take new pictures so that you could then photo them with a DSLR to get a digital file you can then use to make a print? Wouldn't you just go out and use the DSLR first? Technology has moved on there are easier ways of doing things.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Using a DSLR to 'scan' 35 mm film could be an option. But a 6x7 negative scanned on a <i>"dedicated consumer scanner (aka Minoltas, Coolscans, etc)"</i> can yield 100 MP of true image detail. I don't know of any <i>"high end DSLR"</i> that could match that (well, i <i>do</i> know about the 200 MP capture of some rather expensive medium format DSLRs. Maybe an option? ;-) ).<br><br>Your point is a compelling one, Marc: why use one camera to capture a scene on film, and then proceed to use another camera to copy it to a digital file. Film capture should produce something using a DSLR could not, else there is no point. And if you do use the film camera (because it indeed can produce something the DSLR can't match) you need to use a good scanner to not lose it again.<br>Will you lose the extra quality again when printing as small as A3 (100 MP reduced to 17 MP)?

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"And if you do use the film camera (because it indeed can produce something the DSLR can't</em> match)...."</p>

<p>There's the whole nub of this thread, <em><strong>can</strong></em> the film camera produce something the DSLR (or even something like the Sony a7) can't match at the size of print the OP is interested in. As you go on to question, any extra quality from a high end scan of the film probably won't show at A3(+) size versus a high end digital.</p>

<p>The benefit of 100mp of true image detail I'm not so sure of. I use one of those dedicated consumer scanners, the Minolta Multi Pro, with 6x7 and 6x8 and I'm as happy with the results from my 16mp DSLR at sizes up to 16 x 20/24.</p>

<p>In fact I'm quite stunned by the quality of print obtainable from my, now quite old, Panasonic LX2 10mp tiny sensor camera when printed to 16 x 24. I was reluctant to even bother printing it to that size but somebody insisited on wanting the image that big and I was quite floored at how well it held up.</p>

<p>The point of mentioning all this is to highlight that the numbers don't always tell the full story. If the print is the final goal then looking at the prints gives you the answers. And there's just not that much in it quite often with an A3+ or thereabouts limit.</p>

[don_loseke]

<p>I have an Epson 700 scanner that will give you better images than when the negative was<br>

printed originally in the lab and that is at 16x20 size.. It doesn't matter what size negative you want to use it will scan it and does as good a job as the user wants. </p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>I'm sorry. I can't hold my tongue. I am experienced in this, been doing Photography for more than 50 years and have been tried just about every kind of printing technology. I love printing, its one of my passions, I even like scanning. I have one of the top drum scanners and I know how to use it. In every one of these discussions you find people that will tout the benefits of the Epson scanners with their plastic lenses, or shooting at one's film with a DSLR. This is not the same as the results from a high end scanner. Sure, if you print very small, and if you print in a certain style you won't see it. However, if I was the OP, I would be very careful when listening to some of the posters on this thread. Check out their web sites and see how good they are at their technology, decide if their results match your "exhibition-quality" and go forward from there. Without pointing a finger at anyone, I find many of the statements unsupportable.</p>

[george_doumani]

<p>ok everyone, thanks for the input but may I, as the OP, put a few things straight concerning my intentions and my needs. I do exhibit my work and sell a little so I am no stranger to a quality print. I do own a high end DSLR kit with the highest standard of quality glass available in that format but the reason I want to shoot and scan (120) film (not interested in 35mm) is simply because of some of the newer film emulsions, namely Kodak Portra. It is superb from what I have seen.</p>

<p>I can hear everyone now saying... "with good technique and a little focus on PP skills everything is achievable via digital". I agree to a point but I also disagree. The way the larger formats render an image in the right light with the right technique on the right emulsion shot at a particular EI is something digital has never come close to as far as I am concerned. I know I will hear objections. </p>

<p>Please I don't want this to degenerate into the typical digital versus film debate.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm with Lenny part of the way. I have a V700 with Betterscan mounts. It does a great job for my Blurb books- images up to 10" sq from MF. It does a great job for my website, presentations and other screen-based applications. I have been known to make the odd small print from V700 scans of MF film. But I would not myself use a V700 to make medium-large prints of "exhibition standard". Its not just a question of pixel counting; its a question of the quality of those pixels and the ability to give satisfactory shadow detail.</p>

<p>For prints that size you need a film scanner IMO. Even a Coolscan 8/9000 delivers a real 4000ppi against the Epson's scarcely more than half that- and that IMO should be your baseline for anything you're going to exhibit or sell, or even to hang on your walls at home if you want something to make you feel proud. </p>

[steve_johnston4]

<p>I guess I'll weigh in on this as well. I used a Flextight for 10 years. SCSI was a nightmare to get running, then it was very sweet. Since then, I have used a v750 on 6x4.5 and 6x6 negs, with good results up to 24x30 print size.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Hasselblad Flextight.</p>