What Scanner do you recommend, are you using?

[rich_weiss]

I am currently shooting an M7 with 12mm VC, 28mm Asph Summicron,35

Asph Summicron and 90mm f2.8. I also use a Canon 10D. I wish to

purchase a scanner "worthy" of my Leica glass. I am using photoshop

CS and have a Epson 2200 printer. I am new to Digital, however I have

had some good success printing images from my 10D.

I would be shooting typically Fuji Reala 100 and 800, and TriX, and

TMax (100 and 400, usually not pushed) in my M7.

I have old Kodachromes as well.

 

I am looking at the following scanners:

 

Microtek ArtixScan 1800f 1,049 after rebate

 

Microtek ArtixScan 120tf 1,500 after rebate

 

Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED 1,849 after rebate

 

Imacon Flextight 343 4,995.95

 

I have heard the 1800 F is good for slide film, but hard to use for

color negs, while the 120tf is intuitive and Nikons jam.

I do not mind spending 5,000 if I really have to, but if any of the

above scanners would do justice to my Leica, that would be fine.

I would welcome any other scanner suggestions, these are scanners I

have spoken to friends about. I live in an area where I cannot look

at these scanners.

Please give me your experience with ease of use, product quality,

optical quality and customer service.

 

thankyou for your time.

[martin_shakeshaft]

I think the first question you need to ask yourself is why are you looking at scanners that do more than 35mm? Will you need this? Do you have medium format negs that you need to scan?

 

If the answer is no then stick to a dedicated 35mm scanner. Remember that even 2820 dpi scanners are going to give you an equivalent of 40 mega pixels.

 

The next question is how big are your finished prints going to be? If you are using the 2200 the largest you are going to get is Super A3. So in a lot of cases 2820 or 4000 dpi is going to be fine. Some of your choices are over kill.

 

I would recommend that you look at the Minolta range of scanners and more specifically the Minolta 5400. This will give more than enough resolution (@5400 dpi) is well priced and gives fantastic results.

[eric_perlberg]

I use a Nikon 4000 ED and can't comment on the actual scanners above but I can comment on two issues you should consider. The first is speed. Scanning film is a slow and boring process. To get the best of your scanner, you have to multiscan and frequently use some post-processing. Aside from the decision making about which tools to use on any particular scan, the actual grinding away of the scanner scanning is tedious. The new Nikon 5000 or 9000 are claimed to be significantly faster than the 4000/8000. Since you're using a Leica M7, I'm not sure why you're looking at MF scanners, the only advantage they offer is the larger film scanning size. If you're not planning a foray into MF then this is money better spent elsewhere.

 

The other issue you should consider is that tri-x and T-max don't scan particularly well. The archives cover this well. Chromagenic films like XP-2 scan much better. Slide film scans well and I personally use slide film for both my B/W and colour. I convert in photoshop using channel mixing (also covered in the archives).

 

Another point to consider is that at 4000dpi you are scanning at the resolution of the film (if not more). I don't see any advantage of scanning at greater resolution.

 

Lastly, my Nikon 4000 has never jammed. It's a solid performer.

 

The Nikon 4000 and similar scanners would do justice to your Leica lenses IMO.

[mrivers]

I also use a Nikon 4000 and would add a few comments.

 

I scan 14 bit images with Photoshop CS which produce a 127 meg file. I also

originally switched from Ilford HP-5 to chromogenic BW film to ease scanning which is

slow and boring. With C-41 film stock, ICE at least limits how much dust spots you

have, and GEM helps to soften any grain issues at 4000 ppi. I have also stopped

using any BW film, and shoot Reala 100 for color, and Press 800 for color or BW. I use

PhotoKit 1.2 from Pixel Genius to manipulate color to black and white in Photoshop

CS. www.pixelgenius.com

 

Michael

[jim_a]

If money is not the issue then the Imacon is the winner from your list. I have a Microtek 4000tf I've

been using for the last year. There is a <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/4000tf/"><b>review</b></a>

on my site I wrote earlier this year that answers your questions. Good luck, HTH.

[doug herr]

If your Kodachromes are not perfectly flat the Nikon scanner will

not do. The scanner has a very limited depth-of-field and if the

slide isn't flat you can get the center sharp or the edges sharp

but not both. Kodachrome is probably the most difficult film to

scan because of its deep rich blacks. If the price of the Imacon

isn't an issue that's what I'd get.

[robert_hout]

Don't have one, but after a lot of reading of reviews and asking advice I have been swayed to order the Canon FS4000. I understand its quite sharp and produces great scans. It comes with a 6 slide holder tray in the package so that you can do at least 6 at a time, which is nice. Although it is only USB1.1 or SCSI. Did I also mention its a 4000dpi scanner for less than $600.

[m_.]

I agree with everyone that you should not pay extra for a MF film scanner while you only shoot 35mm films. Get a Nikon 4000ES instead of 8000ES and it is a great scanner. Slow but still much faster than wet darkroom printing.

[matt_m__toronto_]

i'm using the epson 3200. good for my needs.

[rich_weiss]

thankyou so far for your responses. I have no large format cameras. I am just looking to make the best scans from previous 35mm media, as well as future shooting. I have seen there are problems scanning black and white silver based films. I will not scan everything I own, just what I plan to print 5 x 7 up to about 11 x 13 (however I like to crop, consequently this leads to greater magnification of the resulting cropped image) thanx

[Robin Smith]

If you can afford it of course you should get the Imacon. You may find though sometimes that the Imacon is too much fuss though.

 

There is no need to get an MF scanner if all you are shooting is 35mm - they are more fiddly and take longer to set up. The Imacon is different as it holds all films flat which is a big plus. I use the Canon FS4000 - very good it is too. The new Minolta 5400 or whatever it is also looks good.

[johann_fuller]

I have Nikon 4000 and use it very succesfully with conventional black and white film. I use vuescan to get a full tonal range ( Nikon scan clips highlights) and post processing in PS preserves the character and tonality of the film I use. I don't like C41 black and white film - it's soft and tonaly it just does not do it for me. The scanner has been very reliable and has never jammed. If you want to capture everything that your best Leica glass can put on film then you will be slightly disapointed - although the specs are 4000dpi the actual resolution is limited by the optics. I have also compared an Imacon that I used for a long time with the 4000 and there was nothing to seperate them in terms of resolution ( although the imacon held the sharpness further into the corners)I would wait until the new 5000 is out and tested before taking the plunge. Also look ar investing a lot of time into post production in Photoshop to get the very best results - just like in a darkroom - the best quality comes with knowledge and experience. Just because it's digital does not mean it's a shortcut to skill.

[patricks]

The new Minolta 5400 (?) for under $1,000 will fullfill your every need and produce scans that will blow you away. Don't buy anything else before checking that one out.

 

I got the Minolta Scan Dual III which is the best dedicated 35mm value/scanner under $500 - and it comes it at $289!

 

Cheers,

[waterden]

For 35mm scans for printing up to 11x14 the Minolta Scan Dual III is fantastic value for money and far better than the Taiwanese clones. You can scan up to 48Mb which is more than enough for this sort of magnification. By comparison, most digicam TIFF images are usually below 8Mb. The dust removal software is supposed to be less effective than that which comes with the Minolta 5400, but you can always remove spots in your imaging software. The image adjsutment software which comes with the Scan Dual III comes in two versions - an EZ version for those who just want the basics or a far more comprehensive version which does much of what you get in an imaging program. Scanning is boring but it has been a revelation for me - Ive moved back to 35mm from digicams with this discovery and am now archiving all my old film material (should take me a year or two!). The great bonus is you can do your own printing with these fantastic new inkjets (Canon 965i, etc) and have darkroom control without going through all the labours of the wet / projection process yourself. Brilliant. If you want to scan MF negs / slides you used to have to go for the much more expensive scanners (£2000 or so) but Ive read that the new Epson Perfection 3200 does MF rather well but is less good (insufficient resolution) for 35mm than a dedicated film scanner.

 

Martin

[james_.1]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

 

This may be of some help. Compare for example the Canon FS-4000 and Nikon 4000 dark detail areas in the sample scans. Given this, I'd go with a Nikon. I suppose there are workarounds to this. BTW I spent last night in my darkroom making 8 prints. Makes me interested in this subject as well- scanning, photoshopping, and printing. Especially the manipulating stage.

[EricM]

I'm using the epson 3200 with the silverfast software, great for what i need, 44meg file from 35mm colour slide, great focus depth, does trix well, neg carriers up to 4x5.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Eric: what advantage does silverfast have? I have it but I've never used it.

[dlegaspi]

i have a Canon fs2710 which i use with vuescan. scan everything in RAW mode (even negatives) and adjust in PS. excellent results.

 

silverfast is overrated.<div></div>

[johann_fuller]

Yes the Epson 3200 has great depth of focus -nothing is in focus! When you compare it with a dedicated film scanner for 35mm there is no contest. Silverfast (the pro version ) is very good but also very expensive - Vuescan is as good and much, much cheaper. The Silverfast LE they give away with scanners is often worse than the OE driver as it does not alow high bit depth output.

[Spearhead]

The Microteks are better if you are doing only black and white. I've been using a Polaroid scanner (hardware by Microtek) with excellent results. The problem is that Microtek doesn't provide good software and you will have to use Vuescan.

 

There is no flatbed that comes close to the quality of a film scanner. I tried the Epson route. I'd spend more than the Epsons cost and pick up the Minolta scanner, or a lot more and buy the low-end Imacon if you really want to spend that much.

[john_shriver]

Yes, the Epson 2450 and 3200 flatbeds are not sharp enough to use their resolution. But that's not all bad. It means that it's hard to have grain aliasing problems with them. Scanning beyond 1200 dpi resolution doesn't get you much more information. But they just cannot scan dense negatives, and they cannot get into the shadows of Kodachrome. But they are really nice with medium format, especially when you're dealing with old negatives in obsolete sizes like 116 and 122.

 

The Nikons remain very good for Kodachrome, because of the analog gain which adjusts the brightness of the light source. You at least get to pick what part of the dynamic range of the slide falls within the dynamic range of the CCD. (It's NOT all of it!) Analog gain has also helped me scanning B&W negatives.

 

I have not had any grain aliasing problems with a CoolScan IV ED. Nikon does include an optical low-pass-filter, which all scanners should have, but only some have.

 

The biggest advantage of VueScan and SilverFast is scanning color negatives, methinks.

[jim_a]

Jeff, my Microtek came with Silverfast which I find to me much better than Vuescan. I don't use their software if that's what you are commenting on. I agree that it's a great B&W scanner. It's the main reason I bought it.

[Spearhead]

I'd agree that Silverfast is a fine way to run the scanner, I was referring to the Microtek software.

 

Also, I found the Epson scans to be fairly soft and inferior to the lower resolution scans from the UMAX Powerlook products, which is what I would buy if I absolutely needed a flatbed for negatives and transparencies. I can easily spot the difference between negatives I scanned on an ancient Powerlook 3 and the Epson 2450.