I would think this would have been covered extensively here, but a search for the term scanner came up with nothing.
Im working on getting back into film after being away for at least 10 years. Havent invested yet in chemicals, but thankfully I still have most of my equipment. No concern there. But I used to HATE scanning, it was this rabbit hole that always had endless problems. I just sent a test roll of Tri-X (shot at EI320) to a well-known lab to have it processed and scanned, and the 18MB scans look horrible. Theyre going to send me the negs, but right now I dont know if the problem was processing, scanning or some of both. I am quite sure it is not my equipment, as 3 cameras and 5 lenses were in the test, all with the same results.
Which brings me back to putting things under my own control. I may be willing to invest in scanner & software, but am completely in the dark 😄 about what are the best options these days. It would be for 35mm and 120, mostly B&W. If you good folks would please provide some recommendations, along with your reasoning, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Also, if you're looking for a dedicated film scanner, they're becoming hard to find in good condition. Plustek is currently making one. The version for 135 is easy to find and not too expensive, they may have a 120 version. Canon, Nikon and all the others stopped making them in the early 2000's.
Im using an Epson V700 with Silverfast software and getting very good results. It is an older version but the scans are as good as I would get with the latter models. Watch some of Nick Carver UTube videos on how to get the most out of the scanner.
Norm Shapiro wrote:
Im using an Epson V700 with Silverfast software and getting very good results. It is an older version but the scans are as good as I would get with the latter models. Watch some of Nick Carver UTube videos on how to get the most out of the scanner.
+1
I use a digicam setup when I go back and scan 35mm/XPan frames, but for anything bigger, my v700 gets the job done. I use the Better Scanning holders (unfortunately he's no longer in business), but there are sellers on eBay that can get you all sorts of old Epson stock of any holder you'd want.
go on facebook to the Nikon Coolscan users and find Frank A Phillips and tell him you want a Coolscan 9000 he gets them on occasion and cleans them. Get an old an iMac and run Nikon Coolscan software or an old powerbook from 2008
The newer version of the Plustek 120 scanner is excellent (reviews I've read rate it higher than any of the Epsons) and it also does 35mm film; the downsides are cost (more expensive than my Sony full-frame digital camera) and the fact that it's rarely in stock anywhere.
I use a Plustek 8200i for 35mm and love it; for 120 I use a refurbished Epson V600. The V600 and earlier models are not great for 35mm; the 850 is probably the best all-rounder if you're determined not to do camera scanning.
Much depends on what you want to do with your scans. I don't print, and I don't need the best quality or resolution. I scan 35mm film at 3200 dpi and 120 film at 1600; the files are fine for my purposes and if I ever want to make high-quality digital prints of my negatives there's a drum scanning service in my town.
I think most have gone to camera scanning for high quality scans. I'm using a Sony 5DrV/Tamron 90 and doing a single shot with 35, 2 two shots with 120 and 6 shots with 4x5 and then stitching. I'm very happy with the results. Here's a thread I started trying to cover the bases for someone starting the process. A scanner is great if you're doing a whole roll in one scan like a contact sheet.
Camera scanning isnt something Ive considered. My only high res digital camera is a Q3 43. Not interested in investing thousands more just to get scans. It also seems time consuming. The last rolls I sent off came back terrible. This is turning into a rabbit hole and I cant see the bottom.
For 120, I would have recommended an Epson V850. I picked up mine refurbished for ~$800, and I still like its bang for the buck. But I doubt it will deliver pleasant results with 35 mm. And Silverfast is not for the faint of heart, although it ain't too bad once you learn which 95% of the user interface to turn off and ignore.
samuelphoto wrote:
Camera scanning isnt something Ive considered. My only high res digital camera is a Q3 43. Not interested in investing thousands more just to get scans. It also seems time consuming. The last rolls I sent off came back terrible. This is turning into a rabbit hole and I cant see the bottom.
The only way to get quality scans without going down the camera scanning or old film scanner rabbit holes is to pay a lab more for better scans. I've been camera scanning for years so I can't recommend any labs, but maybe that would be a better option for you.
I've used both a V800 and camera scanning. I've obtained good results from 35mm film from a V800. Most complain about the scans not being sharp enough. I got the best results using two steps of sharpening, once using USM in Silverfast and then a second pass using smart sharpen in Photoshop. To dial in the sharpness settings on both I've used the Vlads Calibration targets for 35mm film. For 120 film I've been pleased with my results not using USM in SIlverfast and just doing smart sharpen in Photoshop or LR after scanning. The key advantage of using camera scanning is speed of getting the shots in digital form. And yes it is a rabbit hole if you aren't careful.
Thanks, all, Ill keep researching. Maybe Ill get the V850. It baffles me that companies with film-based products dont invest in good but reasonably affordable scanners as a way to facilitate sales. If something like the Coolscan series came out again, I would buy probably it. I get it that Kodak doesnt have the resources today, but they sure did 20 years ago. I guess Fuji dropped the Frontier line. And how about Leica? What better way to help sell M film cameras? They wouldnt have to do it alone, could hook up with a competent partner like they have done with phones and watches and minimize direct investment and risk. But whether or not it would be affordable is debatable.
davidsee wrote:
go on facebook to the Nikon Coolscan users and find Frank A Phillips and tell him you want a Coolscan 9000 he gets them on occasion and cleans them. Get an old an iMac and run Nikon Coolscan software or an old powerbook from 2008
I follow some photographers on flickr who use Nicon Coolscans, and usually their scans look striking - so I wish I had one!
They're really pricey though, especially if in good condition and when they contain all the bits and bobs you need..
..in the end I could never bring myself to spend that much money on a device that's two decades old already 🫤
for 35 mm: Plustek OpticFilm 8200 Ai
for 120 and 4x5" films: Epson V850 flatbed scanner (also works with 35 mm quite well)
Important: both scanners come with free SilverFast scanner software. It works okay for B&W but is horrible to use for color scans (yellow border casts, bad color calibration with correct filmstock in software selected, and cumbersome to upgrade especially when two versions are installed for each scanner). Easier to use and much better results especially for color based scans with Vuescan instead.
geekcop wrote:
I've used both a V800 and camera scanning. I've obtained good results from 35mm film from a V800. Most complain about the scans not being sharp enough. I got the best results using two steps of sharpening, once using USM in Silverfast and then a second pass using smart sharpen in Photoshop. To dial in the sharpness settings on both I've used the Vlads Calibration targets for 35mm film. For 120 film I've been pleased with my results not using USM in SIlverfast and just doing smart sharpen in Photoshop or LR after scanning. The key advantage of using camera scanning is speed of getting the shots in digital form. And yes it is a rabbit hole if you aren't careful. ...Show more →
This complaint is heard often but always has the same root cause: the focus plane is misadjusted. Unfortunately Epson does not at all document this well. Intuitively the user thinks that the focus plane is directly on top of the flatbed scanner glass - but it is not! Instead the focus plane is located about 1-2 mm above the glass - the V850 comes with negative holders which have adjustable "feet" to make up for this difference. I tested it with negative scans at all possible height levels of the holder, and the results were remarkable - the middle one was spot on and sharpest. Since I get very sharp scans using my V850 - no need to additional sharpening afterwards in PP.
samuelphoto wrote:
Camera scanning isnt something Ive considered. My only high res digital camera is a Q3 43. Not interested in investing thousands more just to get scans. It also seems time consuming. The last rolls I sent off came back terrible. This is turning into a rabbit hole and I cant see the bottom.
You have only two options when using developed film negatives: digitizing (either scanning or photographing) and/or using the full analog process with making contact and full prints in the darkroom with enlarger etc. Digitizing is the most tedious and time consuming in the film-to-digital workflow. Easier for B&W but can be painful and time consuming for color negatives to get the white balance correct. I learned faster making darkroom prints from B&W negatives than becoming proficient scanning negatives!
Alternative to scanning is taking photos with a digital camera using NegativeLabPro and some backlit device. This works especially well for 35 mm films. With 120 film, this method becomes more cumbersome, too.
samuelphoto wrote:
I would think this would have been covered extensively here, but a search for the term scanner came up with nothing.
Im working on getting back into film after being away for at least 10 years. Havent invested yet in chemicals, but thankfully I still have most of my equipment. No concern there. But I used to HATE scanning, it was this rabbit hole that always had endless problems. I just sent a test roll of Tri-X (shot at EI320) to a well-known lab to have it processed and scanned, and the 18MB scans look horrible. Theyre going to send me the negs, but right now I dont know if the problem was processing, scanning or some of both. I am quite sure it is not my equipment, as 3 cameras and 5 lenses were in the test, all with the same results.
Which brings me back to putting things under my own control. I may be willing to invest in scanner & software, but am completely in the dark 😄 about what are the best options these days. It would be for 35mm and 120, mostly B&W. If you good folks would please provide some recommendations, along with your reasoning, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!...Show more →
The reason it isn't covered extensively is that people have entrenched, but diverse opinions on this topic. I typed out my opinion on this topic on another website, and promptly ran into 1990s style moderation - the post was removed because the OP gets to do that, and a black mark on my profile was awarded. It was my second, and last post there.
By now you see there are a handful of choices, and any one of them can be acceptable. It is not like riding a bicycle - it requires learning all over again the entire analog process. I too hated scanning - so I leaned towards as much automation as possible. Other people like baby-sitting hardware c'est la vie. Welcome back to film - I hope you enjoy the journey - I do.
Jim
James Markus wrote:
The reason it isn't covered extensively is that people have entrenched, but diverse opinions on this topic. I typed out my opinion on this topic on another website, and promptly ran into 1990s style moderation - the post was removed because the OP gets to do that, and a black mark on my profile was awarded. It was my second, and last post there.
By now you see there are a handful of choices, and any one of them can be acceptable. It is not like riding a bicycle - it requires learning all over again the entire analog process. I too hated scanning - so I leaned towards as much automation as possible. Other people like baby-sitting hardware c'est la vie. Welcome back to film - I hope you enjoy the journey - I do.
Jim...Show more →
That's why FM is the best of the photo forums. We can actually discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different methods without preconceived opinions.
