Medium Format : Flatbed Scan - VS - 35mm : Dedicated (Plustek) Film Scan

Craigus

Craigus

Messages
1,559
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
These discussions on scanning are quite wide ranging but I haven't come across much about this specific topic, so let me explain.

Medium format is something that I have wanted to use for a couple of years now and I've discussed that a little on here. The main reason by a long way that I haven't is down to the scanning and the quality* of the results attainable on a flatbed scanner**. I don't have a flatbed, so would need to factor purchasing one into the cost of a medium format system. What I do have is a dedicated film scanner for 35mm, a Plustek. The results from this are excellent and I'm very happy with this for all intents and purposes. But the quality of larger negatives is still a draw for me.

I suppose I would like experience from people with both setups, but welcome the views of others too. Does a flatbed scan of a medium format negative still give the quality* advantages that the format allows when compared to a high quality scan from a dedicated film scanner (like a Plustek) of 35mm?

Just for clarity I'm not talking about comparisons between the same format on different scanners, that has been done to death. I'm specifically talking about a medium format (lets say 6x6) on a flatbed scanner, directly against 35mm on a dedicated film scanner.

*quality is subjective I know, I'm not talking about any one specific aspect but all of them, sharpness, tonality, colour rendition etc.
** I know not all flatbeds are born the same, for the sake of argument lets say something around the level of a V700.
 
I have never been happy with the scanning of MF with my V500, I have felt that the focal point is always ever so slightly off on the scanner. I haven't ever been able to get decent results from my dedicated 35mm scanner either, but I think that is because I suck with a MF camera lol

This adds nothing to your thread, lol.
 
I have a Plustek that I use for 135 and an Epson V550 that I use for medium format.

Medium format scans from the flatbed look better than 135 scans on the flatbed but it's just because of the size of the negative. If I compare an equally sized area of 135 and 120 negative the quality is exactly the same - slightly mushy in comparison with the Plustek. However, short of buying a much more expensive scanner, having lab scans made, or setting up a digital camera scanning process, there's not a lot I can do unfortunately. Some of the more expensive flatbeds will likely produce better results than mine.

To be clear though, it's not really a problem. It's only noticeable if I start pixel peeping the MF images when zoomed right in, and they look absolutely fine otherwise.

Here's a random shot (taken with my Yashica Mat 124G) scanned on my Epson V550 to give you an idea of the quality.

If you click through to Flickr you can see it larger.


FILM - On Hawley Street by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Thanks Nige, that is a good example of the scanning potential, there is a lot of detail in there!
 
Credit where it's due, I think Nige gets better scans than many of us with similar or possibly "better" flatbeds like the V700, and I think he's recognised for that ability. Filmdev charge the same for developing and scanning MF as they do for 35mm, so you'd get 15 or 16 645 negs & scans for the price of 36 in 35mm. Obviously different costs if you're home developing, but commercial needn't be a major barrier to MF. You can get an old folder like an Ensign 16-20 for £30 or less, run a couple of films through it and then sell it on if it's not for you?
 
Last edited:
I think the increase in negative size more than outweighs the slightly lower resolution of the V500+++ series. If you shell out for a V700, you should be more than satisfied (and IIRC you can scan 4x5 later when you move up again).

I have been less than impressed with the V500 negative holders, and I think I only get to scan 2 6x6 negs at a time on the V500 (it's a while since I did it!). If the holders on the V700 are better, that could be an additional reason to go that way.
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
I think the increase in negative size more than outweighs the slightly lower resolution of the V500+++ series. If you shell out for a V700, you should be more than satisfied (and IIRC you can scan 4x5 later when you move up again).

I have been less than impressed with the V500 negative holders, and I think I only get to scan 2 6x6 negs at a time on the V500 (it's a while since I did it!). If the holders on the V700 are better, that could be an additional reason to go that way.
Click to expand...
The V700 scans upto 4x5 in neg holders and 10x8 negs placed directly on the glass.
The holders can be a little flimsy but I can't say that I've experienced big problems with them tbh.
 
Peter B said:
I think Nige gets better scans than many of us with similar or possibly "better" flatbeds like the V700, and I think he's recognised for that ability.
Click to expand...

I don't know what software. settings etc Nige uses but yes his resulting images are generally very detailed.

I will always maintain that putting aside human involvement / error, the weakest point from film exposure to printing out on paper is the scanning.

I have found however that any required adjustment of curves etc is better done in the scanner software prior to actually scanning rather than making adjustments afterwards.

The drawback is that the viewing window for the scan preview ( vuescan) is limited in size so often a little tweaking is still sometimes required following the scanning in PP but it is a method that I've found works for me.
 
Asha said:
I have found however that any required adjustment of curves etc is better done in the scanner software prior to actually scanning rather than making adjustments afterwards.

The drawback is that the viewing window for the scan preview ( vuescan) is limited in size so often a little tweaking is still sometimes required following the scanning in PP but it is a method that I've found works for me.
Click to expand...
I've been using Epsonscan with the V700 recently, and find I'm getting better results than with Vuescan. This was a surprise to me, but rescanning negs with Epsonscan gave better results, and the adjustment windows for curves etc seem to be big enough. I only loaded the software disc that came with the scanner originally, but I think it updates to a later version once you install and register it. Worth a try if you have the disc Asha?
 
Peter B said:
I've been using Epsonscan with the V700 recently, and find I'm getting better results than with Vuescan. This was a surprise to me, but rescanning negs with Epsonscan gave better results, and the adjustment windows for curves etc seem to be big enough. I only loaded the software disc that came with the scanner originally, but I think it updates to a later version once you install and register it. Worth a try if you have the disc Asha?
Click to expand...


I only have the one disc which offers the driver for the scanner…....I don't know if it offers anything else tbh.
Perhaps the software icomes on another disc that I don't possess but if that is the case then where did viescan come from?:thinking:

I'll have to dig the disc out to see what menu / options comes up on the computer screen
 
Asha said:
I don't know what software. settings etc Nige uses but yes his resulting images are generally very detailed.

I will always maintain that putting aside human involvement / error, the weakest point from film exposure to printing out on paper is the scanning.

I have found however that any required adjustment of curves etc is better done in the scanner software prior to actually scanning rather than making adjustments afterwards.

The drawback is that the viewing window for the scan preview ( vuescan) is limited in size so often a little tweaking is still sometimes required following the scanning in PP but it is a method that I've found works for me.
Click to expand...

I don't do anything too fancy when scanning - Epson Scan for the MF stuff and Silverfast with the Plustek. My Epsonscan workflow hasn't changed since I originally posted the details here.

The image above has been processed in Lightroom too, so it will have additional contrast, clarity, highlight tweaks etc. and a little bit of sharpening (Amount=25, Radius=1.0, Detail=25 are the usual settings I use).
 
I do shoot sheet film too so when a used V700 came up cheap I grabbed it. I can't say I have had any problems with scanning 645. They look good to me when viewed on a 5k 27" mac

Anybody who loves film should have a go at medium format, those negatives are beautiful.


received_2104951509592287.jpeg
 
It's so good seeing other peoples results from their flatbeds. Mine (V700) is sat in it's box now as for the life of me I have never been able to get acceptable results from it so now I exclusively use the lab for all my colour stuff and if I do B&W and home develop, I have been printing in the dark room. Well, until I had to break it down to move house and now I don't have one anymore.
I have often considered letting the V700 and darkroom stuff go as I have a LOT of it and the scanner only gets used for scanning Polaroids now which I still shoot quite a lot of. Anyway, it's ace to see people getting such good results home scanning! :D
 
Thanks for the input everyone. It sounds to me like Nige is perhaps able to get better results than many others can who I'm sure are not computer illiterate either so I am still a bit unsure.

I would rather avoid lab scans altogether, particularly for medium format images that I will likely have gone to a lot more effort to capture. I have not been all that impressed with the colours from C41 from the couple of popular labs that I've tried, and had some negs returned with significant scratching too, which is all leading me towards dealing with the negatives entirely myself, including developing. I would prefer to have control over the whole process.
 
Craigus said:
Thanks for the input everyone. It sounds to me like Nige is perhaps able to get better results than many others can who I'm sure are not computer illiterate either so I am still a bit unsure.

I would rather avoid lab scans altogether, particularly for medium format images that I will likely have gone to a lot more effort to capture. I have not been all that impressed with the colours from C41 from the couple of popular labs that I've tried, and had some negs returned with significant scratching too, which is all leading me towards dealing with the negatives entirely myself, including developing. I would prefer to have control over the whole process.
Click to expand...
All I can say to that is, you’re using the wrong labs.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
All I can say to that is, you’re using the wrong labs.
Click to expand...

I tend to use the cheaper ones as the cost can quickly get out of hand for multiple rolls and good quality scans. This is also leading me towards keeping it all "in-house". Who do you use?
 
I started my medium format adventure by letting a lab handle both processing and scanning. I tried Peak Imaging and AG photographic, which are both respectable pro labs. Great people. I have no complaints with either the processing (negatives were perfectly developed and clean), or service (the negatives were back with me 3/4 days max), However I found their scans left a lot to be desired (admittedly, I only tried their cheaper scanning option). Well I was almost about to leave MF behind altogether because given these scans, I could not honestly see the advantage over shooting 35mm, for which I've owned a dedicated scanner (a Minolta Scan Dual) for about 15 years.

Before going back to 35mm, I decided to give it a final go and purchase an Epson flatbed. I translated my 35mm Minolta-based scanning pipeline (essentially Vuescan+Colorperfect plugin+Photoshop) to 120. I also decided to do my own processing, which gave me another huge degree of control.

Epson flatbed scans tend to be vilified in film photography forums. People complain about dust, exposure, sharpness, bad colours. There are increasingly even people who would go as far as putting together complicated and expensive repro stand-DSLR-based solutions in order to avoid using flatbed scanners. Personally, I don't know if there is a lot of sample variability in Epson scanners (perhaps I got a particularly good sample?) but my 120 scans are *much* better than the lab scans I was getting back from Peak Imaging and AG photography.

To answer OP's question, I now prefer my flatbed 120 scans to my dedicated-scanner 35mm scan and have largely moved to shooting 120 almost exclusively.

I'm sure epson scanners are not the be all and end all for 120 scanning (if Plustek finally drops the promised new 120 dedicated scanner I'll be on it in a heartbeat) but they can give consistently good results IME.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
have a Plustek that I use for 135 and an Epson V550 that I use for medium format.

Medium format scans from the flatbed look better than 135 scans on the flatbed but it's just because of the size of the negative. If I compare an equally sized area of 135 and 120 negative the quality is exactly the same
Click to expand...

I have exactly the same setup and feel exactly the same about the results. I can get "amazing quality" out of medium format scans - and when I say that, I mean printable to A2, not looking at a screen.

Tom Servo by Ian, on Flickr

That shot was a 645 neg (Pentax 645n) scanned on my V550 and looks beautiful in print (Flickr murders sharpness for me). My issues are definitely between the floor and the shutter button when it comes to sharpness with too low shutter speeds contributing to issues more than anything else.

Would also agree that my scans need sharpening. I use Silverfast and turn off the USM function because it's way too heavy handed. I try and get he most neutral file I can then use Lightroom to develop it further.

6x7 (RB67) shot on Acros 100 (version 1)

Camera Portrait I by Ian, on Flickr

"Nige's Images" are a benchmark I try and use and I know I can hit it with MF if I get everything right in camera (rare). 35mm though is a different story. The V550 is good for contact sheets, but I rarely get a usable file for print over A4. The Plustek is better, but the DSLR scanning method is the absolute best for me. Unfortunately though, it takes a dreadfully dull job and makes it even worse. If I could have a dedicated space to set up a scanning station with my XT-2 I might do it, but it's *still* not as good as MF.

HP5 is a good example, as I can shoot it at 800 in my 645 and get lovely clean images, but it's very grainy at 35mm. All due to the fact that I need to magnify the 35mm frame so much more to get it to the same size. Grain gets magnified too.
 
Craigus said:
I tend to use the cheaper ones as the cost can quickly get out of hand for multiple rolls and good quality scans. This is also leading me towards keeping it all "in-house". Who do you use?
Click to expand...

Thats part of the problem unfortunately. Cheap doesn’t always mean good but it can often mean quick turnaround which a lot of folk on here like. Cheap, fast, good. You can only usually choose two of those.
I use Canadian Film Lab who were formerly U.K. Film Lab. in fact I have two rolls away with them now. When they moved I used Carmencita in the interim who are also very good. both give you feedback on each roll. I’ve sent hundreds to CFL over the years including full weddings.
 
I use an Epson V600 for 120 film scans and have been happy enough with the results. I've found that 3200 dpi is about the sweet spot for scanning both 120 and 35mm on that scanner, any more or less and sharpness/detail seems to suffer. Here are some examples, click on the image to pixel peep in Flickr. Hope this is useful.

Yashica 635 6x6




Ensign Selfix 820 6x9




Ensign Selfix 16-20 4.5x6

 
Last edited:
Harlequin565 said:
I have exactly the same setup and feel exactly the same about the results. I can get "amazing quality" out of medium format scans - and when I say that, I mean printable to A2, not looking at a screen.

"Nige's Images" are a benchmark I try and use and I know I can hit it with MF if I get everything right in camera (rare). 35mm though is a different story. The V550 is good for contact sheets, but I rarely get a usable file for print over A4. The Plustek is better, but the DSLR scanning method is the absolute best for me. Unfortunately though, it takes a dreadfully dull job and makes it even worse. If I could have a dedicated space to set up a scanning station with my XT-2 I might do it, but it's *still* not as good as MF.
Click to expand...

I’m flattered to be held in such esteem! :)

I’m much like you when it comes to DSLR “scanning” - I’ve seen some excellent results, but the process is too much of a faff. I have considered one of the scanning adapters that have been appearing lately, but haven’t taken the plunge (if there are any on display at the Photography show! I’ll take an interested look though).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top