35mm home scanning options

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I already have the Epson v550 but as I’ve sold all my medium format cameras apart from a pinhole Camera I’ll be sticking with 35mm mainly. The Epson works fine but it is a little lacking on the resolution front. I’m not expecting 24mp but their probably only 2-4mp. Looking at the Plustek 8200iAi. The comparisons do look quite a better but I’ve never had first hand experience of it
 
No experience of Plustek. You could consider a used Nikon Coolscan model - well-proven performance, but make sure that it has usb connectivity and not the older scsi. Then because it can be hard (but not always impossible) to get the no longer updated Nikon Scan software working on a modern os, think about Vuescan or Silverfast SE.
 
droj said:
No experience of Plustek. You could consider a used Nikon Coolscan model - well-proven performance, but make sure that it has usb connectivity and not the older scsi. Then because it can be hard (but not always impossible) to get the no longer updated Nikon Scan software working on a modern os, think about Vuescan or Silverfast SE.
Click to expand...
They seem a bit hard to come for a decent price. There’s one about that’s refurbished for £500, seems like a lot
 
I have a Plustek 7500i (which came with Silverfast SE Plus, no longer usable with current MacOS) and an Epson V500 (boxed away on a shelf somewhere). I much prefer using the Plustek for 135; the film holder is much better for a start (though if you were taking half frame or XPan or Lomo you wouldn't want the Plustek film holders as the are very much 24*36mm). The Plustek is also capable of multi-scans as its registration on multiple passes is better. This is used by Vuescan (and SF) for multi-exposure as well as multi-scan. Multiscan reduces noise and somehow improves scan quality by combining several passes; I will normally do 2 passes but for frames that look really promising I might do 4 or more. The multi-exposure adds a slower pass that blasts more light through; it helps with shadow areas in reversal film, or highlight areas (eg clouds) in negative film. The other capability in those Plusteks that have it (designated with an i) is the additional infrared scan used for dust and scratch removal. This can't be used with black and white film (except XP2) or Kodachrome, but can be useful for C41 and E6, specially older slides that have been sat around for a few years. It's not perfect, and can introduce artefacts, but it can also be a big help.

Have a look at the reviews on filmscanner.info; the Plustek models tend to be software variants on the same hardware, so if you don't see the exact model name have a look at something similar.

I will scan "ordinary" frames at 2400 ppi which gives about a 8.5 Mp image, and ones I think are special at 3600 ppi which gives a nearly 20 Mp image. There's not really that amount of image information in either scan, but you can certainly print to A4 at 2400 and A3 at 3600.
 
Will the V550 not do decent 2400 DPI scans? Because if so, that should give you just over 8.5M pixel files.

In terms of the plustek scanners, they seem to get good reviews by the people that use them on here. I've never used one myself, so can't comment any further than perceived opinion.
 
Last edited:
If you have a DSLR or a mirrorless, then you can us it as scanner for negatives, there are a lot of ways of doing it, just search the web.
 
Woodsy said:
Will the V550 not do decent 2400 DPI scans? Because if so, that should give you just over 8.5M pixel files.

In terms of the plustek scanners, they seem to get good reviews by the people that use them on here. I've never used one myself, so can't comment any further than perceived opinion.
Click to expand...
It gives decent scans but it’s a bit lacking for 35mm compared to 120. Most of the reviews I’ve seen say it’s good for 120 but not so good for 35mm and I can see why. It’s not bad though
 
ChrisR said:
I have a Plustek 7500i (which came with Silverfast SE Plus, no longer usable with current MacOS) and an Epson V500 (boxed away on a shelf somewhere). I much prefer using the Plustek for 135; the film holder is much better for a start (though if you were taking half frame or XPan or Lomo you wouldn't want the Plustek film holders as the are very much 24*36mm). The Plustek is also capable of multi-scans as its registration on multiple passes is better. This is used by Vuescan (and SF) for multi-exposure as well as multi-scan. Multiscan reduces noise and somehow improves scan quality by combining several passes; I will normally do 2 passes but for frames that look really promising I might do 4 or more. The multi-exposure adds a slower pass that blasts more light through; it helps with shadow areas in reversal film, or highlight areas (eg clouds) in negative film. The other capability in those Plusteks that have it (designated with an i) is the additional infrared scan used for dust and scratch removal. This can't be used with black and white film (except XP2) or Kodachrome, but can be useful for C41 and E6, specially older slides that have been sat around for a few years. It's not perfect, and can introduce artefacts, but it can also be a big help.

Have a look at the reviews on filmscanner.info; the Plustek models tend to be software variants on the same hardware, so if you don't see the exact model name have a look at something similar.

I will scan "ordinary" frames at 2400 ppi which gives about a 8.5 Mp image, and ones I think are special at 3600 ppi which gives a nearly 20 Mp image. There's not really that amount of image information in either scan, but you can certainly print to A4 at 2400 and A3 at 3600.
Click to expand...
Nice :). Yea I think the one I quoted basically comes with Silverfast 8. Might have to see if there’s one second hand on Ebay. How’s the sharpness compared to the Epson? I don’t see myself printing above a4, I use 35mm just for family photos so printing big is a priority, I use the a6000 when I do landscape or want big files
 
There's a Plustek 8100 in the Classifieds, no infrared and has SF SE Plus rather than AI (no relationship to seller).
 
I have to say, I use a V500 for both 120 and 35mm. I've never found it to be lacking.

What is it that's lacking for you?
 
simon ess said:
I have to say, I use a V500 for both 120 and 35mm. I've never found it to be lacking.

What is it that's lacking for you?
Click to expand...
It’s not lacking in 120 only 35mm. Just resolution. That being said I’ve only ever used the Epson and only seen comparisons online
 
N.B. I've never used or owned an Epson V500. I have used the top model Epson flatbeds from the 2400 onwards, and from published specs that should mean that I came in at a lower level than the V500.

I do own a PlusTech 120 film scanner, and I have compared the results to those from the Epson. You'll have to download the files to be able to view them. There is a slight improvement, but not one that would be noticed at small print sizes (from medium format - say A3). I doubt that the differences would be detectable at A4 from 35mm. These are from Kodachrome, Olympus OM camera and lens(es) scanned with the V850. I do have scans made with the 2400 onwards, but the camera imposes the limits on resolution, not the scanner.
 
I dunno about plustech but if I'm honest, I'd be looking at Minolta for a used dedicated 35 scanner, its a happy halfway house cost wise
Thick end is Nikon of course and extra thick...Pakon

flatbeds are not my thing
 
OR if you are not into home dev and want a quick result you could take the easy way out and let filmdev do your scans on a Noritsu or Fuji frontier...lowest scan on the Fuji would give quite a good print at A4.
 
I shoiuld perhaps have made it clear that the scans from the old scanner came from 1967 35mm negatives, using an Exakta and (probably) the 50mm Domiplan lens, which one person on the AP forum held up as a shining example of a lens to use to demonstrate every aberration known to man. I've no doubt that they could not be pushed to give a satisfactory 10x8 darkroom print - I have tried in the past. To my surprise, the scanned versions make better prints at that size. I could speculate on reasons, but won't. The bottom line is that for A4, I'd find the lower Epsons fine. Others may not.
 
Asha said:
Worth looking into I think before forking out for scanners;)
Click to expand...

Probably true for 35mm toy cameras and crappy lenses, but not so sure for very good film lenses as the digi guys using their 24mp cameras (using film lenses) can get excellent detail which a non pro 35mm scanner couldn't equal (well IMO).
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I got better results from 35mm Kodachrome using the V850 than I got using a slide duplicator on a Sony a7r2. I haven't tried the macro lens approach, as the effort wasn't worth any possible gain. The V850 scans were fine for A3.
 
Digital scanning has,in some people, made film photography psychologically frustrating due to pixels and more to the point pixel peeping!

Often the pixelated image on a computer screen resembles something that I could easily ( and indeed I have done) beleive is unworthy of a print.

I've found however that upon printing out onto paper that the quality of the resulting image is usually superb….much more so than the on screen quality.

That refers to prints upto A3+ although nowadays i print no larger than A4

Ben johns said:
. The Epson works fine but it is a little lacking on the resolution front
Click to expand...

Does this refer to an actual paper print or a digital / pixel file viewed on a computer screen?

If the latter, my suggestion is to print out and then curse the resolution of the scanner if it is that whichis truly at fault!
 
excalibur2 said:
Probably true for 35mm toy cameras and crappy lenses, but not so sure for very good film lenses as the digi guys using their 24mp cameras (using film lenses) can get excellent detail which a non pro 35mm scanner couldn't equal (well IMO).
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I agree that scanners can be the week point between obtaining a negative and the end print but the lack of res / quality in a final print is not forced to be due to the scanning process….there are other variables.
 
Asha said:
Fair enough, I agree that scanners can be the week point between obtaining a negative and the end print but the lack of res / quality in a final print is not forced to be due to the scanning process….there are other variables.
Click to expand...

Well this could go around in circles as the next question is:- is a print capable of producing all the tones\colours and detail.... that is on the neg taken with a VG lens.
 
stop the bus I wanna get off

if this thing meets itself and makes a circle of pixels, res and micro-measurement....

.....I might have to jump out the window
 
Asha said:
Digital scanning has,in some people, made film photography psychologically frustrating due to pixels and more to the point pixel peeping!

Often the pixelated image on a computer screen resembles something that I could easily ( and indeed I have done) beleive is unworthy of a print.

I've found however that upon printing out onto paper that the quality of the resulting image is usually superb….much more so than the on screen quality.

That refers to prints upto A3+ although nowadays i print no larger than A4



Does this refer to an actual paper print or a digital / pixel file viewed on a computer screen?

If the latter, my suggestion is to print out and then curse the resolution of the scanner if it is that whichis truly at fault!
Click to expand...
i have made prints BUT from an ok home photo printer. I do intend to get some printed at a decent printers before blaiming the scanner. However the print i did do was not very good, pretty pixelated, but that was when i just started using film and ive got better at scanning now.
 
Ben johns said:
I already have the Epson v550 but as I’ve sold all my medium format cameras apart from a pinhole Camera I’ll be sticking with 35mm mainly. The Epson works fine but it is a little lacking on the resolution front. I’m not expecting 24mp but their probably only 2-4mp. Looking at the Plustek 8200iAi. The comparisons do look quite a better but I’ve never had first hand experience of it
Click to expand...

I currently own an Epson and have previously owned a Plustek. If I were you, I'd spend my money on film or travel rather than worry about the differences between these two scanners, which—in terms of results—will likely be negligible.

Certainly, when I had both for a short period, neither improved my photography—compared to the other—in any measurable way.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well this could go around in circles as the next question is:- is a print capable of producing all the tones\colours and detail.... that is on the neg taken with a VG lens.
Click to expand...

Short answer -easily verified from any textbook on photography - no.
 
Pffff.

I fart in your general direction.

And your grandmother smells of raspberries.

Anyway, back on topic...
 
Not wishing to be a pedant but it's

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries"

:D
 
Andysnap said:
Not wishing to be a pedant but it's

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries"

:D
Click to expand...

^^That's ^^ naff and probably outdated like ….oh never mind, best not to say:exit::LOL:

I prefer Simons 21st century version:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top