Negative scanners

P

py6km

Messages
906
Edit My Images
Yes
There seem to me to be a couple of options when it comes to these -- Plustek or Epson.

Which would you choose (or have you chosen)? It's not completely clear to me yet what the differences are between, e.g., the Epson V600 and V850, or the Plustek 8100 and the other/higher end Plustek models. For example, the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE looks half decent, and not that much more than the Epson V600

​

 
There's nothing wrong with either of those but if your negatives are 35mm, a cheaper option is a full frame or APS format digital camera with a "slide copier"attached, such as this Ohnar...

Ohnar slide copier E-PL1 10183.JPG

Note that "0.6" setting on the scale indicates that this unit can copy a full frame onto an APS sensor.

If you are really serious, there are sophisticated devices, such as this |Illumitran, which I picked up second hand for £60. It has its own electronic flash light source and can take almost any combination of lenses and camera bodies to copy up to 6x7 format.

Bowens illumitran with Canon dSLR 5D 9521.jpg

At the other end of the scale, extension tubes will also do the job, if you use a steady tripod to hold the camera.

I find that using a camera as the recording device is much faster than any true scanner that I've come across. The results have always been acceptable for my needs.
 
Last edited:
I guess the obvious difference is desktop footprint.

I have a Plustek 8100 and an Epson V550.

For sure the 8100 gets me better quality 35mm scans than the flatbed, but the V550 is more versatile in that I can scan my 120 film as well as 3:1 35mm panos from the sprocket rocket, or from being shot in medium format cameras with an adapter. I can also scan my respooled 126 (square) negatives with a lot less faff on the V550.

If all I was ever going to shoot was standard 35mm, I'd go with the Plustek. But if you ever intend to branch into 120 (or larger) or do strange things with 35mm, then the flatbed is the way to go.

As far as the different models go, I'm not entirely sure. Both the 8100 and V550 are bottom of the range, and give me acceptably sharp prints up to A2 size which is a ton more resolution than I ever need for internet display or photobooks. I also don't scan that much colour, but my understanding that colour acuracy is more down to the software than the scanner. For me, the upgrade from V550 to V800 is definitely not worth it.

There is a big scanner thread here also that's probably worth a read.
 
Thanks folks -- I no longer have any DSLR equipment, so the standalone scanner option is going to be best for me. I think that all I'd every be doing would be 35mm to be honest.

How much of a problem 'Newton rings' are in practice is an unknown to me (I suspect not much of an issue to be honest), but the Plustek models do away with that issue. Leaning towards a Plustek at the moment to be honest, along with the Negative Lab Pro plugin for LR classic.....
 
Newton rings are only a problem if you're laying something against glass. So using an iPad for a backlight for example, or scanning directly on the glass of a flatbed without using their neg holder things. For V550 scans I use ANR (Anti-Newton Ring) glass and scan direct on the bed as that gives me the best results.
From what you say though, it sounds like the Plustek is the way forward. It's also really quick to do a roll of film.
 
I have a Plustek 120 film scanner (I can't recall the model, but it was at the high end) and an Epson V850. The Plustek is marginally better with my 6x7 negatives, but not by much. As a mainly large format user, Epson is the only practical option for me.

You choice will depend on what film sizes you want to scan. There was a time when I thought I wouldn't go bigger than roll film...
 
I have a Nikon Coolscan V which does a nice job on 35mm though to be honest I shoot very little of that these days. Not sure how it compares to the Plustek but there are certainly comparisons online.
 
I have an Epson flatbed (a V700) and a Plustek 8100. The Plustek is much better for 35mm scans but, as @Harlequin565 says, it's not as flexible. If all you're scanning is 35mm though, then I'd definitely recommend the Plustek Opticscan 8100 or 8200 models.

Here's a video that compares one against a Pro Nikon Coolscan model:

View: https://youtu.be/shNdiq2kKr8?si=mWZg5kP2OL02h4tL
 
I have an Epson V700 which I've used to scan thousands of negatives and slides in various formats, the scanner's versatility is the a big appeal. I find the quality fine, I've never printed larger than A4 in all the time I've had it. Previously I had a Minolta 35mm film scanner which I would say gave slightly better scans but not massively better.
 
I use an ancient Nikon Coolscan II aka LS30. I picked it up ridiculously cheaply from the Real Camera Co in Manchester, boxecd and looked unused.
These as SCSI interface scanners, so getting it going on a modern PC is a bit challenging but can be done. The supplied software and drivers, no chance.
However, VueScan takes care of all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
I have a Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner, which is still just about useable with some 3rd party software (thanks, Sony... :rolleyes: ). I've also used a Nikkor 60mm macro lens with the slide copying adapter. The scanner is slightly better, although the macro lens set up it quicker. I can use the scanner with an old MacMini and the original software (in OSX Tiger!) if needs be.
 
Sorry for the duplicate post,

I have just purchased a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and have managed to get it running with the Original Nikon Coolscan 4 software & drivers on Windows 11 which saved a bit of money not having to purchase more software!

I use an Epson V850 Perfection flatbed with Silverfast Ai Studio 8.8 for my 6x6 scans but felt it struggled with 35mm.

Using the Coolscan with the Nikon Software is a breeze and I am really pleased with the results.

The below was taken on a Rollei 35SE (zone focus) with Kodak Gold 200 film that was home processed:


Image2-Edit by Fraser White, on Flickr
 
I found my Epson V700 wouldn't work properly on Windows 11 with Epson Scan, for instance not all the application controls were visible until you clicked on their approximate location on the application forms! But then Epson Scan was clearly cr*p form the outset, and hasn't had anything in the way of useful upgrades since I first bought the scanner, a long time ago.

So I'm using Vuescan now, for which I have a 'perpetual' license. I've used it often in the past but, being very lazy, I almost always used Epson Scan, no more.

Your scan above is terrific.
 
PeterSpencer said:
I found my Epson V700 wouldn't work properly on Windows 11 with Epson Scan, for instance not all the application controls were visible until you clicked on their approximate location on the application forms! But then Epson Scan was clearly cr*p form the outset, and hasn't had anything in the way of useful upgrades since I first bought the scanner, a long time ago.

So I'm using Vuescan now, for which I have a 'perpetual' license. I've used it often in the past but, being very lazy, I almost always used Epson Scan, no more.

Your scan above is terrific.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words Peter - in order to get Epson scan to work properly on Windows 11 you have to download the compatible OS software on the Epson Website. (y)
 
py6km said:
Thanks folks -- I no longer have any DSLR equipment, so the standalone scanner option is going to be best for me. I think that all I'd every be doing would be 35mm to be honest.

How much of a problem 'Newton rings' are in practice is an unknown to me (I suspect not much of an issue to be honest), but the Plustek models do away with that issue. Leaning towards a Plustek at the moment to be honest, along with the Negative Lab Pro plugin for LR classic.....
Click to expand...
Couldn’t you get a second hand mirrorless and a macro lens for the price of a scanner? I had an Epson v550 and for 35mm it was really poor. Sony sell a 30mm e mount macro lens that’s cheap for what it is. My friend has one. I’ve borrowed it to scan 35mm, it works well.
 
I have to be honest, I'm leaning towards a Plustek. I would be getting my 35mm film developed by a lab and then would want to scan it in and process it using negative lab pro in Lightroom, which (from what I've seen) looks to give excellent results. It therefore doesn't seem as thought the version of Silverfast that comes with the scanner would be much of a concern for me, would that sound reasonable?
 
While I use Vuescan to scan colour negatives on my Plustek before converting them in Negative Lab Pro you can also use Silverfast. There's a mini guide:

www.negativelabpro.com

Film Scanning Best Practices | Negative Lab Pro

Learn the settings and techniques for getting the best scans to work with in Negative Lab Pro
www.negativelabpro.com www.negativelabpro.com
 
Last edited:
py6km said:
I have to be honest, I'm leaning towards a Plustek. I would be getting my 35mm film developed by a lab and then would want to scan it in and process it using negative lab pro in Lightroom, which (from what I've seen) looks to give excellent results. It therefore doesn't seem as thought the version of Silverfast that comes with the scanner would be much of a concern for me, would that sound reasonable?
Click to expand...
In that scenario, I don't think the version of SF that comes with the scanner would be an issue.
 
py6km said:
I have to be honest, I'm leaning towards a Plustek. I would be getting my 35mm film developed by a lab and then would want to scan it in and process it using negative lab pro in Lightroom, which (from what I've seen) looks to give excellent results. It therefore doesn't seem as thought the version of Silverfast that comes with the scanner would be much of a concern for me, would that sound reasonable?
Click to expand...
I’m at much the same point as you and would be really interested to hear your first impressions of the Plustek Scanner if you do take the plunge. I’ve been happily using a lab up until now for dev/scan, but feel that with some images I really want to get more from the negative. A scanner might also pave the way to home development, which is as far as I would want to go with the wet stuff, second time around. It‘s taken me some years to get comfortable with the basics of Lightroom, so I’m hoping that the accompanying Plustek software is not too challenging for those of us who struggle a bit with computers.
 
FishyFish said:
I use a Plustek 8100 and am happy to share my settings (Silverfast and Vuescan).
Click to expand...
Nige's scans are the best I've seen, so this is definitely something to take him up on!
 
I use a Reflecta Proscan 10T for 35mm ( and half frame ) - negatives and slides. It came with a version of Silverfast but I switched to Vuescan quickly.
Works for me - I am about 3/4 digitising our old films from c 1968 onwards - not that many in fact just a few hundred rolls I guess.

I like the IR scratch removal. Its about 1.5 to 2 hours per roll including basic post processing in DXO PL ( to my own standards but probably not good enough for many here ).

Probably not too much difference between these scanners except the 10T doesn't have an auto feed for cut film.
 
Here are my Silverfast settings:

Silverfast #1.JPGSilverfast #2.JPG
Silverfast #3.JPG

The only thing I change (other than the output directory) is the Negafix setting - while I tend to leave it set to the film I'm using, sometimes I get better results by using another film type (e.g. selecting Ilford Delta for HP5+). It can differ from roll to roll, or frame to frame sometimes. I'll edit the histogram occasionally, but not very often.

Here's that same picture after it's been through Lightroom (the only real tweaks I make are to the highlights, shadows, blacks, whites, and add a bit of Clarity (between 15 and 20). I think the Lightroom sharpening is at whatever it defaults to. I usually add a little more sharpening in Photoshop, but haven't done that here.:


Scan example by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

And, here's a version I tried converting using Negative Lab Pro. I think I might prefer this one, it has a touch less contrast. All the Lightroom settings are the same, except for the white and black points, which I adjusted slightly differently on each shot to avoid clipping. Both are edited to my personal tastes, but they can be made to look considerably different if required.


Scan example-2 by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

For Vuescan, because I use Negative Lab Pro, I just use their recommended settings to produce a RAW DNG file:

www.negativelabpro.com

Film Scanning Best Practices | Negative Lab Pro

Learn the settings and techniques for getting the best scans to work with in Negative Lab Pro
www.negativelabpro.com www.negativelabpro.com

I do have a seperate Vuescan profile for reversal film though.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Here are my Silverfast settings:

View attachment 403514View attachment 403515
View attachment 403516

The only thing I change (other than the output directory) is the Negafix setting - while I tend to leave it set to the film I'm using, sometimes I get better results by using another film type (e.g. selecting Ilford Delta for HP5+). It can differ from roll to roll, or frame to frame sometimes. I'll edit the histogram occasionally, but not very often.

Here's that same picture after it's been through Lightroom (the only real tweaks I make are to the highlights, shadows, blacks, whites, and add a bit of Clarity (between 15 and 20). I think the Lightroom sharpening is at whatever it defaults to. I usually add a little more sharpening in Photoshop, but haven't done that here.:


Scan example by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

And, here's a version I tried converting using Negative Lab Pro. I think I might prefer this one, it has a touch less contrast. All the Lightroom settings are the same, except for the white and black points, which I adjusted slightly differently on each shot to avoid clipping. Both are edited to my personal tastes, but they can be made to look considerably different if required.


Scan example-2 by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

For Vuescan, because I use Negative Lab Pro, I just use their recommended settings to produce a RAW DNG file:

www.negativelabpro.com

Film Scanning Best Practices | Negative Lab Pro

Learn the settings and techniques for getting the best scans to work with in Negative Lab Pro
www.negativelabpro.com www.negativelabpro.com

I do have a seperate Vuescan profile for reversal film though.
Click to expand...
Thank you really appreciate this :)
 
Just a little update here -- after doing a bit more digging, I picked up a Nikon Coolscan V ED yesterday. They seem to sit quite high up in the hierarchy of negative scanners as they have, amongst other things, a true optical resolution of 4000dpi. It has all the bits and bobs with it, including an automatic feeder, so hopefully less faff (and better quality) that a flatbed.

Have found various helpful resources that have enabled me to install the drivers and the latest (last) Nikon Scan, but have to to plug it all in and test. Will report back when (/if) it's up and running!!
 
py6km said:
Just a little update here -- after doing a bit more digging, I picked up a Nikon Coolscan V ED yesterday. They seem to sit quite high up in the hierarchy of negative scanners as they have, amongst other things, a true optical resolution of 4000dpi. It has all the bits and bobs with it, including an automatic feeder, so hopefully less faff (and better quality) that a flatbed.

Have found various helpful resources that have enabled me to install the drivers and the latest (last) Nikon Scan, but have to to plug it all in and test. Will report back when (/if) it's up and running!!
Click to expand...

A wonderful choice. Amongst other things, Nikon Scan's colour inversion routines are outrageously good in my own experience, and far surpass what I could obtain in the past with Vuescan's own routines or the 3rd party inversion tools I've tested (Colorperfect, Grain2Pixel and NLP).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top