A question about scanners

TiCoyote · Jan 2, 2014

In high school, I learned B&W film photography. Now, I'm shooting all digital, professional wedding photography.

My father-in-law just gave me a MF TLR. It's in the shop right now with a sticky shutter. I'd really like to start taking MF B&W portraits. It's mostly for fun. I love the look and depth and grain of the film, and I like the hands-on process of processing and developing. I imagine, I could eventually offer professional film service to high-end clients, but that's looking a few years down the road.

For under $150, I can get a changing bag, tank, chemicals, film, etc., and process the film in my basement.

Then what to do next? Enlarge or scan? I imagine that I would get the best image with an enlarger, but I don't really want to turn the basement into a darkroom, and my wife REALLY doesn't want me to do that either.

So I'm looking at a scanners. From what I hear, scanning is the weak link. I'm not ready to drop $2k on a PlusTek OpticFilm 120, although I understand they are the bees' knees. If I get to the point that I can offer professional film services, that may be the way to go, but I don't think this is the tool for trying things out and learning.

I'd prefer to spend around $200 on a CanoScan 9000F MkII, or an Epson Perfection V 600. From what I understand, most people comment that they are pretty good scanners for $200, but don't expect the moon. And between the two, Imaging-Resource and Shutterbug seem to prefer the Canon, but McNamara report shows that the Epson has higher resolution and dynamic range in this video:

Another option is the V700 for around $650. Maybe cheaper used. If it's leaps and bounds better, I'd go with that. But it's a CRT scanner, not an LED scanner, so it's slower. And if it's slower, only a little sharper, and more expensive, I'd rather have one of the first two.

A third option is getting one of the cheaper scanners and then getting the Silverfast software ($120) and/or the BetterScanning negative holder ($80).

I checked out lab scanning services, but they seem to run $3-4 per negative, so that ends up at around $50 per role. Too expensive.

Can anyone please share thoughts and experiences? Thank you.

Josh66 · Jan 2, 2014

I use a V600 and have been happy with it. There's not really much to complain about, IMO. I can't comment on the Canon scanner.

Another difference between the V600 & V700 is that the V700 can also scan large format (and more frames of 35mm/120 at once). Might not be an issue, but it's something to consider. I haven't used it though - so I can't give you a direct comparison of the two. I do plan on getting one eventually though (for the large format option)...

Robin Usagani · Jan 2, 2014

I just got this one. Pretty good if you only do 35mm and slides. It can do 7200 dpi scan which is super high compared to other scanners.
OpticFilm 8200i Ai | OpticFilm 8200i Ai | Plustek

webestang64 · Jan 2, 2014

A dedicated film scanner is better then a flatbed. The OpticFilm scanner mentioned above looks like a nice one. Or you could get a used Nikon Coolscan or Minolta Dimage. I've used many scanners in my time in labs. By far the best is the Noritzu 1800 I use at work. Of course the common man can't afford $25,000 for one.

Derrel · Jan 2, 2014

I have an older Epson Perfection 3200 Photo, a flatbed that has a transparency adapter. It scans 6x6 and 4x5 inch film pretty well, actually. It's the offering from "before" the V-series scanners, and at the time,was considered decent in the photo hobbyist realm. You can spend anywhere from $300 to $40,00 for a 'good scanner'.

The real secret to medium format and 4x5 is that you do not absolutely "need" ultra-high resolution anything to make a good enlargement! The smaller the film format, the more-essential high-rez "stuff" is. On medium format, even a CHEAP 4-element lens from an old Ricohflex or Yashica twin-lens will maker a good 20x20 inch print if the lens was at f/7.1 and you focused accurately.

Forget the need for a high-speed scanner...scanning a frame of medium format takes a "while", but the time is like 15 TIMES FASTER than making even one single test enlargement!!! STart modestly, and see how this shakes out before you start writing for drum scanner brochures...

TiCoyote · Jan 3, 2014

Thanks, Derrel. A thoughtful and knowledgeable post, as always!

I found the reviews at this site to be the most thorough and definitive: Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice

For now, I'm going to get the Canon. It's the fastest and the cheapest, so hopefully it will introduce the least frustration. I also plan to get Vuescan. The consensus seems to be that it's easier to use than Silverfast, even though Silverfast might eventually produce better results after a significant learning curve. Also, again it's cheaper.

In a year or two, if I'm doing a lot of this, I might pick up the Pacific Image Primefilm 120. They run $1250 on sale, and they're faster than the OpticFilm 120, with comparable image quality. Right now, Vuescan's support for the Pacific Image is... well, uncertain. But maybe in a year or two they will have adopted it. I need a new flatbed scanner anyway, so I can keep the Canon for other things.

Thank you everyone for the input.

Josh66 · Jan 3, 2014

TiCoyote said:
I also plan to get Vuescan. The consensus seems to be that it's easier to use than Silverfast, even though Silverfast might eventually produce better results after a significant learning curve. Also, again it's cheaper.

Try both.

I personally never liked VueScan, but loved SilverFast. The learning curve wasn't as bad as you may have been lead to believe. There may be a free trial, not sure. [EDIT - There is.] The 'lesser' versions of SilverFast can often be found bundled with scanners.

Mike_E · Jan 4, 2014

Or you could look into scanning with your DSLR.

A macro lens or even a tube and you can either take a photo of the whole negative or take several and stitch them together for even higher resolution.

limr · Jan 4, 2014

Didn't see this until today. I've been using the Canon CanoScan 8800, which is the model I believe that is being replaced by the 9000. I've had absolutely no complaints at all. It's been really great for my purposes. Even scanning at 1200 dpi, I've been able to get sharp 11x14 prints from a 35mm negative. With MF negatives, of course, you could go even bigger at the lower res and then super big at a higher res.

I've never used the editing software that comes with the Canon, though, so I can't comment on that. Well, that's not exactly true. Sometimes I'll add a little backlight or color correction before the scan, but I don't do any post processing with it. I have Corel PaintShop ProX5 that I'm fairly happy with.

Robin Usagani · Jan 4, 2014

limr said:
Didn't see this until today. I've been using the Canon CanoScan 8800, which is the model I believe that is being replaced by the 9000. I've had absolutely no complaints at all. It's been really great for my purposes. Even scanning at 1200 dpi, I've been able to get sharp 11x14 prints from a 35mm negative. With MF negatives, of course, you could go even bigger at the lower res and then super big at a higher res.

I've never used the editing software that comes with the Canon, though, so I can't comment on that. Well, that's not exactly true. Sometimes I'll add a little backlight or color correction before the scan, but I don't do any post processing with it. I have Corel PaintShop ProX5 that I'm fairly happy with.

1200 dpi? 35mm = 1.37 inches. 1.37*1200= 1644 pixel wide. That is awfully small. You want scanner that can scan 4000 dpi or higher.

limr · Jan 4, 2014

That depends on what you're using it for. Seriously, 11x14 prints looked great. I meant to rescan the negative at a higher resolution but didn't have a chance to do so before I ordered the print (from Adoramapix) so I printed from the one that I'd scanned in lower just to see how it came out. Clearly it would depend on the actual image - some negatives scan in more information than others - and I might have been pushing it, but I didn't see any reason to rescan.

Edited: Just checked the files. The one that I didn't get a chance to rescan (Image A) was 1690x1113. Two others that I did rescan at 2400 dpi were obviously bigger. One was at 2863x4775 and another at 3795x4996, both of them from a 35mm negative. Actually, there was a third one that was very similar to Image A that was scanned in at 2400 dpi and the dimensions are 6224x4480. Now I remember that I wanted to rescan Image A, found the negative and when I scanned it in, I realized I'd chosen the wrong frame.

Josh66 · Jan 4, 2014

3600 is like the minimum I scan at. I usually scan at 4800. Sometime more, if it's something I really feel good about.

limr · Jan 4, 2014

I usually have no patience for a first-run scan I do just to see how things come out, and for my purposes, I really don't need anything higher. If I really get excited about something, I'll rescan higher, but for the most part, it's really not gaining me a lot scanning much higher.

Robin Usagani · Jan 5, 2014

limr said:
That depends on what you're using it for. Seriously, 11x14 prints looked great. I meant to rescan the negative at a higher resolution but didn't have a chance to do so before I ordered the print (from Adoramapix) so I printed from the one that I'd scanned in lower just to see how it came out. Clearly it would depend on the actual image - some negatives scan in more information than others - and I might have been pushing it, but I didn't see any reason to rescan.

Edited: Just checked the files. The one that I didn't get a chance to rescan (Image A) was 1690x1113. Two others that I did rescan at 2400 dpi were obviously bigger. One was at 2863x4775 and another at 3795x4996, both of them from a 35mm negative. Actually, there was a third one that was very similar to Image A that was scanned in at 2400 dpi and the dimensions are 6224x4480. Now I remember that I wanted to rescan Image A, found the negative and when I scanned it in, I realized I'd chosen the wrong frame.

if it is 6224 pix and it was scanned at 2400, you weren't scanning a 35mm. It is a source that's almost 3 in wide.

limr · Jan 5, 2014

Robin Usagani said:
limr said:

That depends on what you're using it for. Seriously, 11x14 prints looked great. I meant to rescan the negative at a higher resolution but didn't have a chance to do so before I ordered the print (from Adoramapix) so I printed from the one that I'd scanned in lower just to see how it came out. Clearly it would depend on the actual image - some negatives scan in more information than others - and I might have been pushing it, but I didn't see any reason to rescan.

Edited: Just checked the files. The one that I didn't get a chance to rescan (Image A) was 1690x1113. Two others that I did rescan at 2400 dpi were obviously bigger. One was at 2863x4775 and another at 3795x4996, both of them from a 35mm negative. Actually, there was a third one that was very similar to Image A that was scanned in at 2400 dpi and the dimensions are 6224x4480. Now I remember that I wanted to rescan Image A, found the negative and when I scanned it in, I realized I'd chosen the wrong frame.

Click to expand...

if it is 6224 pix and it was scanned at 2400, you weren't scanning a 35mm. It is a source that's almost 3 in wide.

Yes, I was scanning 35mm film. Look, I don't pretend to understand how the calculations work to turn a piece of film into a digitized file of a certain size, but I do know what I'm shooting and I do know what 35mm film is. (And for the record, the dimensions of one frame are 24mmx36mm.)