daniel_katz2

<p>Anyway thank you for all your answers - you've been a huge help! If anyone has a Pentax 6x7, 67, or 67II with a SMC Pentax 105 2.4 - please PM me as I'm looking for one and would be open to trading for my drum scanning services.</p>

<p>Thank you Steve - you've been a huge help! Can't wait to get a Pentax 67 with a SMC 105 2.4 lens now! :)</p>

<p>Thank you Steve! That's all I wanted to know! None of the other Medium Format Pentax lenses should have it either then?</p>

<p>Someone from the other forums said that it was only the Super Takumar. That the newer lenses shouldn't have any Thorium... I guess a good way to know is to buy one and buy a geiger counter to test it!</p>

<blockquote >Hello All!<br /><br />I've been doing photography for 15+ years now. I shoot 35mm, Medium Format and Large Format. For most of my fashion and portrait work I use a Hasselblad 501C currently but am looking to get a Pentax 6x7, 67 or 67II with a 105mm F2.5 but I read on this site <a href="http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses" target="_blank">http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses</a> that the Takumer 105mm f2.5 is made with radioactive Thorium glass.<br /><br />My question is whether this is for ALL the 105mm f2.5 lenses or only the older Takumar branded ones (the newer ones that just say Pentax are not radioactive)? When did Pentax switch over to non-thorium lens elements? How can I know which ones don't have it? Were there any other lenses that were radioactive?<br /><br />Also I am debating between buying the three different Pentax camera's. The II is obviously more expensive but I want a really bright WHITE viewfinder. I can't stand it when they have the split finder and the yellowing. Do all of them have that? Thank you!</blockquote> <blockquote >The reason for switching is that I really love the Bokeh, Contrast and look you get with teh 105mm F2.5 Takumar, it's very similar to the 110MM/F2 Hasselblad Zeiss lens. I could buy a dozen Pentax 67 camera and lens combo's for the price of the 110 zeiss hasselblad combo!</blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>For $1,999 at B&H you can get a Plustek Optic film 120, which is a new contender, and may do the job for you. I have not used it personally.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know if you've read the rest of the posts. But I think we've established that my budget is in the $500 range, and that for $2000 you can get a drum scanner, or a used Imacon Flextight II, or a used Nikon D8000 (possibly D9000) or for much less other scanners. Really don't think the Plustek Opticfilm 120 is worth it, especially considering all the better options you can buy and how these Plustek scanners don't keep their value well! Thanks for the suggestion though.</p>

<p><strong>UPDATE II: </strong>I've now found and purchased a couple of drums, Kami drum mounting fluid, Kami tape, and a sheet of mylar from the graphic arts store. I will try to scan my first image this weekend and post it here.</p> <p>Is the Kami Mylar a lot sharper than normal clear mylar you buy in the art/graphics store?</p> <p>I've seen many videos on how to wetmount with a mounting station, but I haven't got one. The Scanmate 5000 has a built in mounting station at the bottom, but I haven't seen any videos or photo instructions on how to use it. The user manual is not very helpful either... Can anyone point me in the right direction about this?<br> <br> Thank you!</p>

<p><strong>UPDATE: </strong>I've received a Scanview Scanmate 5000 for next to nothing, it was practically given to me, with cables, all the manuals, discs, and even a few spare halogen bulbs with reflectors. Kind of disproves the theory that some of you had about me not being able to afford a Drum Scanner. In fact, I bought a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 a couple weeks back, and it cost me way more than the drum scanner. The Sprintscan is an OK scanner, but doesn't have the sharpness, contrast, etc... I was looking for. I will use it for now, it's better than I thought, definitely better than my Artixscan flatbed, maybe not as good as the UMAX Powerlook 3000 I had, although close...<br> <br /> The reason the Scanmate was so cheap is that it's missing drums and a mounting station. It DOES have a built in mounting station, so that's not too much of a problem, although it seems to be not as good as a real one.<br> <br /> If anyone has an extra drum or two (and/or a mounting station), I would be happy to trade some of the halogen bulbs with reflectors for them, at least as a partial trade.</p>

<p>I just lost out my bid on a Scanmate 5000. He had almost agreed to sell it for $700 (INCLUDING SHIPPING) as a best offer, but someone sent an offer above mine (probably at around $1000) a few hours after me. Such a bummer. If anyone has any drum scanners (at least 4000DPI) to sell me (I would settle for an Imacon Flextight, or a really high end flatbed such as a Screen or Scitex as well) let me know! Kind of desperately in need of one for a wedding shoot I did a couple of weeks ago and still haven't scanned. I hate most lab scans with those minilab machines. Thanks for all your guys's help and hopefully someone has something for me! :)</p>

<p>Also it looks like the Scanmate 5000 has a built in mounting station... http://www.terrapinphoto.com/drumscansaga/like_new.jpg This means I can mount one drum, while the other is scanning, and I don't need another mounting station? Is it bad for vision/health in terms of standing by and looking into the drum scanner (does it emit and electromagnet radiation or anything as a microwave or CRT TV would?)</p>

<p>The Scanview Scanmate 5000 manual says it's 3x12bits of colour. This means 36bit colour, not 48bit. Will this matter THAT much? I mean, it's still going to look a lot better in terms of colour than a flatbed or even an Imacon with 14 or 16 bits per channel? Also the Dynamic range is only a 4, but the Imacon and Canon's and others state 4.6 or 4.8... However, a Drum Scanner with 36 bits of colour and 4 dynamic range, will be better than even an Imacon with 48 bits of colour and 48 of dynamic range? And either way I can save as a 48bitt tiff correct?</p>

<blockquote> <p>For $1,999 at B&H you can get a Plustek Optic film 120, which is a new contender, and may do the job for you. I have not used it personally.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know if you've read the rest of the posts. But I think we've established that my budget is in the $500 range, and that for $2000 you can get a drum scanner, or a used Imacon Flextight II, or a used Nikon D8000 (possibly D9000) or for much less other scanners. Really don't think the Plustek Opticfilm 120 is worth it, especially considering all the better options you can buy and how these Plustek scanners don't keep their value well! Thanks for the suggestion though.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I was curious to see what that Flextight II that Andrew linked to went for--$2184, and it's sold "as is" and maybe without all the accessories.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes the flextight seems to be out of the picture at this point...<br /></p> <blockquote> <p>o where does that leave us? I go back to thinking that for medium format film, the next quality / price step up from the V600 may be a Nikon 8000. Complete and working for $1200<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>No thanks, I can get the same or better quality with a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 with glass holders. One sold on eBay recently for $330... the Leafscan will probably do better too at $165 or the Pacific Image Primefilm 120 that sold for $550 on eBay recently. I don't really see a reason for buy the Nikon 8000 or even 9000 when one can get a Drum Scanner for that price.</p> <blockquote> <p>Yes, I see the drum scanners for $1450 and $1750--good links, Robert--but obviously those are big steps up in price, size, and complexity to use.)<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>How is $1450 a big step up from $1200? You can find drum scanners for less than $1000 even, which is less than the 8000 and has way higher resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, etc... Sure it's bigger but I wouldn't say more complex to use... I think the mounting might take time to get used to but other than that it doesn't seem complicated to use compared to those Nikon's and in fact drums allow for better batch scanning capabilities.<br> I think it's rather ludicrous to spend money on a dedicated film scanner that costs as much ore more than a drum scanner...</p>

<blockquote> <p>a bit above your baseline price - but might give you some idea on what options you have if you do decide on drum scanning...</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you. That's really helpful. How do these compare to the Scanview Scanmates? For some reason the Scanmates sell for a lot less than other brands but they seem to be good quality and Made in Denmark. They also have a nicer form factor and look and are smaller than others. Will 5000DPI really be enough for archiving 16mm, 35mm, and medium format negatives and will the Scanmate do it just as well as some of the others you listed? Thank you!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Go for it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Is there anything I need to know in terms of Calibration, Maintenance, etc... How often does it need to be calibrated and the tubes changed, etc... Besides just cleaning the drum is there any other maintenance I will need to do? I could use pure mineral oil and clean the negs with pure glycerin soap and then hang to dry or pat down dry with a special towel?</p>

<blockquote> <p>This is getting ridiculous, really. Do you really believe that NG puts baby oil on all that film and <strong>only</strong> uses the phone book to get it all off? Really? The stuff you're talking about is kind of insane to consider putting on anyone's film. And it doesn't matter, you can't afford a drum scanner and you're unwilling to treat the film correctly. Dishwasher degreaser? Look, take out some of your prized film, oil it down, clean it up and report back how well the film appears the next day.</p> </blockquote> <p>These are solutions I found on other forums online. I am not vouching for them but just asking if they would really work. Other people have found lighter fluid to work, but that's the same as the scanning fluid in terms of toxicity.<br> And I mentioned before that I CAN afford a drum scanner. I have seen Screens and Scanviews selling for the $500-$700 range. If I couldn't afford that, I wouldn't even be talking about my options here! It's much more affordable than getting a used Imacon Flextight, which is another reason I am considering drum scanners.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have also used Johnson Baby Oil as the mounting fluid, and it is in some ways superior because its viscosity holds the negative flat during very long scans better than both the Scanmax and Kami fluids. You can easily clean negatives mounted with the Baby Oil, but it takes a slightly longer wash in the dishwater detergent than with the Kami.<br> The dishwasher liquid I am using for the clean up is called Sun Light Ultra (The greater grease fighter, El luchador contra la grasa). I bought it at a local Ingles grocery store, $1.08 for a 14.7 ounce bottle. Made in Canada for Phoenix Brands of Stanford, CT.<br /><br />However, I am thinking that most dishwater liquids should be very similar. After all, this is the first one I picked off the shelf when I went looking for a diswashing degreaser.<br /><br />However, I was advised to avoid detergents that worked at high pH, and this one works at about base.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Or the other option I found:</p> <blockquote> <p>National geographic uses baby oil for their drum scanning. after scanning, they would put the chromes between the yellow pages (phone book) to get the baby oil off.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>If it's good enough for National Geographic, it's good enough for me... ;)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Anyone today who would spend $5000 on a Nikon scanner is an utter fool! Those who would spend $5000 when the unit came out, a bit less so. Plus the software (NikonScan) is an awful joke. You shouldn't even put it in the same sentence with an Imacon. </p> </blockquote> <p>I agree, I just said it for price point reference and not comparing them at all. I don't understand how the Nikon's are $5000 now and were $3000 when they came out. One can easily buy a Flextight II for $2000 or so which will yield way better results than the Imacon.</p> <blockquote> <p>You say you can't deal with chemicals so wet mounting is a deal breaker.</p> </blockquote> <p>But Lenny mentioned I can use Baby Oil and I read that Glycerine works as well. Cleaning might be a pain but just not sure what to clean it with after?</p>

<blockquote> <p>I think the reason most people don't buy drum scanners instead of the desktop units you mention is cost.</p> </blockquote> <p>I seriously doubt that people that can afford Imacon Flextights, or even used Nikon LS-9000's worry about the cost of drum scanners. The Imacon's and Nikon's start at around $5000 in terms of sale price for the most part. Many people are getting rid of drum scanners for quite cheap these days. You can find many on eBay in the $1000-$2000 range. So NO, I don't think it's due to cost. Maybe it was a decade or two ago, but not anymore with the used market as it is. I think it's really down to size (many people don't have the space for them or don't want something that big) and due to people being afraid of the whole mounting process.</p> <blockquote> <p>As for the chemicals used for scanning, I don't recommend you inhale them in mass but I doubt they are any more toxic than a lot of household items. If you are super sensitive, might be an issue. There are ways to protect yourself and still use them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah I don't really use household chemicals. I use natural stuff instead for cleaning from natural countertop cleaner to natural soap and natural laundry detergent. So no chemicals really in my house, unless you consider vinegar or vegetable glycerin a chemical. I don't really want to be wearing a mask and super protective gear when wet mounting.<br> Good point about the getting used to it part but you have to admit that it's intimidating, especially after watching all the videos and steps, etc... Most people prefer convenience over quality is what it comes down to.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You are still talking about money. You have hundreds of slides to process, you need hard drives, backups, etc. You bought a really slick laptop, but now you want the scanner to be cheap, or you don't want to pay for mounting fluid. It's ridiculous. You don't plan to spend a winter in Antarctica and start haggling about the price of a down jacket.</p> </blockquote> <p>No, it seems you are the one not reading carefully. I didn't say that I didn't want to buy mounting fluid because it's expensive. I don't want to buy mounting fluid because it's toxic and carcinogenic! Also HD's are cheap now, I am going to use my SS for processing and then I will buy a 2TB or 4TB network drive for storing. I will mirror the drives for backup purposes... And anyway you can buy one now for a couple of hundred bucks, it's really not expensive.</p> <p>I mentioned before that I would be willing to pay more if it were a Flextight or a Drum Scanner. I just don't see the point of buying a Nikon LS-9000 for $5000 when one can purchase a good drum scanner in the $1000 range or less these days which will do a much better job.</p> <blockquote> <p>I said it was a PIA to re-wet and dry film after using water, not that drum scanning is a PIA. I am a professional drum scanner operator, and I don't think it is a PIA. It's my livelihood, and frankly I enjoy it.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm sorry for the confusion. Maybe you are used to it, but in general one of the reasons many people don't drum scan and prefer to buy a Nikon or Minolta film scanner or even an Epson flatbed is because they think that drum scanning is a PIA. I thought you said that water shouldn't be used, now you are saying you can use water on film... Do you mean to just use water to clean the film after the baby oil (IE hang to dry)?</p> <p>Anyway, thank you for your help Lenny, I know you're quite passionate about this. My main sway towards drum scanning is really batch scanning abilities and quality. I was more concerned about the chemicals of the scanning, wetting/cleaning fluid as well as any potential radiation that PMT's can put out (is it equivalent to CRT's?)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Daniel, do you actually want to scan or not? You have at least two recognized experts giving info here, quite possibly a few more. Some good info has been revealed thru the discussion, and this is good. However, all your responses are "do I really have to?" Truly, you don't have to do this at all.... no one is forcing you.</p> </blockquote> <p>I just don't like inhaling or touching carcinogenic chemicals.</p> <blockquote> <p>Of course, once done, you'd have to rewet it with wetting agent and dry it. I can imagine you taking all the slides off the drum and hanging them up individually... what a PIA....</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes it is a PIA drum scanning, BUT I realized how much time I would save by basically batch scanning all the negative strips and in post doing: sharpening, colour/exposure compensation, touching up the scratches and dust, etc... It might pretty much even out or maybe it will be even faster drum scanning if you think of it that way.</p> <blockquote> <p>There are people who still use baby oil to mount. It works wonderfully. Of course, one has quite a mess to clean up after every scan both on the film and the drum. There are good reasons that naphtha, which is essentially dry cleaning fluid, is used...</p> </blockquote> <p>This is exactly what I was asking. I researched this and heard that some people have used Glycerin in the past. Does the baby oil have to be mineral oil (Petrolatum) based or can the non petroleum based apricot/grape seed oil be used? Will baby oil and/or glycerin look any less sharp than naphtha or is it all about cleanup? What can be used to clean it up after?</p> <blockquote> <p>There are definitely expenses that occur with every piece of film that is scanned. Probably about $1.50 or so per drum. </p> </blockquote> <p>That's pretty cheap, might be even cheaper with Baby Oil or Glycerine instead of mounting fluid ;-)</p> <blockquote> <p>Photography is expensive these days....</p> </blockquote> <p>The price of film and processing has skyrocketed in the past decade due to digital taking over. I had one of the last rolls of Kodachrome processed at Wayne's before they stopped. Really sad! If I had the money I would buy a Phase One P45 for $5000 used, but a drum scanner is still cheaper and I feel like I should shoot film while it's still around and not take it for granted.</p> <blockquote> <p>I wouldn't do a project like this with a Vaio... I'd suggest a desktop machine that you can add plenty of RAM to, and additional hard drives to hold all the scans... maybe even some management software so you can find things...</p> </blockquote> <p>Well it's not just any Vaio, as mentioned it's a true Quadcore i7 with 8gb of ram, a special 256gb solid state drive from Sony that will blow away any normal retail SSD because it is a raid0 setup with speeds over 1000 MB/sec. It's one of the only 13" that has true procesors (not Ultra low voltage), a full HD screen, 96% Adobe RGB on its special matte screen, etc... Sony basically developed almost every part of the laptop to be its own (IE they didn't source most of the parts elsewhere). On top of that the laptop is made in Japan from carbonfiber, etc... It's about 18 months old now, but still one heck of a laptop, and you would have trouble finding an LED that got that kind of Adobe RGB percentage. On top of that I have a TB external HD to store the files once they have been scanned and edited... I might master them onto Bluray discs and/or a network drive to archive.</p>

<p>Lumina is supposed to be less toxic. BUT it still says:</p> <table width="575" border="5" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF" width="123" height="171"> <table width="123" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Are any scanning <br />fluids<br />"NON -TOXIC" ?<br /></strong></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF" width="424" height="171"> <table width="424" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>NO! All scanning fluids are petroleum distillates and all are TOXIC. <br />There are no exceptions! But the degree of toxicity of scanning <br />fluids can vary a great deal.<br />Respiratory toxicity increases with volatility and the % of aromatic <br />hydrocarbons in the mixture.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>On top of the added expense of this scanning fluid. It contains known carcinogens. Why can't I wet mount with water or some natural chemical free oil?</p>

<p>For anyone that is interested in a comparison between a Flextight and a Drumscan, this is a REAL eye opener: http://carrietaphoto.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/should-i-drum-scan-my-film-or-is-an-imacon-or-film-scanner-good-enough/</p> <p>BTW, if I buy a drum scanner do I REALLY have to make a mounting station? Also do I REALLY have to wetmount? I am sure that if I just tape the negs up, it will look MUCH better than the Flextight or anything else either way... I just really don't want to deal with chemicals and then washing the negs... Unless there is a "natural" drum fluid I can use...</p> <blockquote> <p>I've also found a big Dainippon Screen scanner for sale with everything you'd need not too far away</p> </blockquote> <p>Ah, Dainippon Screen made the Cezanne which was considered one of the best flatbeds ever made, supposedly the closest there was to get anywhere even close to drum or dedicated scanners..</p>

<blockquote> <p>I wish i could find a drum scanner for under $ 1000 ...<br />But they are big and heavy, and i'm running out of space. Any recommendations for a drum scanner that isn't huge and heavy, that can be had for that kind of money?</p> </blockquote> <p>Well the smallest and cheapest one I have seen is a Scanmate. The Scanmate 5000 seems to be the most popular. It's not that big and as far as price goes, it depends how much they want to get rid of it. I've seen people practically giving them away. When I lived in London someone was going to GIVE me one of these, but I had to go up and pick it up in another city and transport it back which was a problem back then since I didn't have a car. Drum Scanners unfortunately aren't worth as much anymore. Most photographers prefer the convenience and popularity of the Nikon D9000 or Minolta Multiscan Pro which sell for thousands of dollars (2-5x what drum scanners sell for) and are much worse in terms of scanning quality.</p> <p>I've practically decided on a Flextight. It is the closest thing to a drum scanner you can get, without actually having a drum scanner. It's quick and easy to use, probably the easiest scanner I have seen in terms of mounting negs. It has the best optics of any CCD scanner, and best of all is the form factor: it kind of stands upright, so if you don't have much desk space it's fine...</p> <p>Now if I can find one for around $1000 or less I will get it. If not I will settle for the Sprintscan 120 or something like that for now. Unless someone gives me a drum scanner or I can get one dirt cheap, but again I don't have the time or space for mounting.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Those two needs are diametrically opposite! An archive that <em>could</em> replace the film calls for something like a drum scanner using a very high optical resolution. I'm sure Lenny can add further. A really good scan of high quality could in theory be output to a film recorder and replace the original with nearly the same quality. Or one could just use the digital data to output to the same size/quality as the original. So if you are serious about having a digital archive, your budget isn't close to being high enough.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well I basically have a childhood negative project I want to do restoration on. I have hundreds of negatives in both 16mm and 35mm that I need to scan and restore. Getting a drum scanner is NOT an option not because of finances (I see a Scanmate 5000 I can get for under $1000) but because it doesn't allow for fast scanning. I don't have my whole life to mount hundreds of rolls of film onto those drums. I work full time, have my own startup, have my photography and film to do, and have a club to run... If the mini labs did even half decent tiff scans that would be great, but they do crappy jpeg scans on those crappy Fuji or Agfa mini lab scanners where all the contrast and colours are blown out and charge an arm and a leg. I've spent hundreds of dollars on sending out negs to get scanned when I can probably do better even on a V700 at home... Anyway this is the Archiving I want to do is this childhood project and batch scanning would be ideal but at decent quality.</p> <blockquote> <p>Just a note here. I looked at the Flextight scans the OP linked. Suggest looking at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericvanden/14412888779/sizes/l" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this image</a>, and then check out some more of the guy's scans. All from Epson V600.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's not bad, but the first image on the link I posted has way better dynamic range, tonality, contrast, and sharpness. My point is - why should I go for an Epson V600/V700/V750 when for the same price or less I can get a Sprintscan 120 (Last one sold for $330 on eBay), Pacific Image 120 (Some selling for the $500-$600 range used), or if I were to go flatbed I could get a Screen Cezanne (which sold for $20,000 new and is probably the best flatbed scanner ever made, last one sold for $350 on eBay) or that strange Leaf 45 which sells for really cheap. All those should be vastly superior to the Epson's, although vastly inferior to the Imacon's.</p>