Plustek 35mm scanners. Anyone own one?

FishyFish

FishyFish

Messages
7,511
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
I keep mulling the idea of getting a Plustek scanner, but I have a concern.

One of the main issues I have with my flatbed is that its negative holder doesn't handle bowed negatives very well (where the centre of the frame is higher than the edges with the sprocket holes). The Plustek holders appear to have bars between each frame to remove this problem, but I'm wondering how well it works in practice? Do the bars successfully hold bowed negs flat?

At present, with my flatbed, if the negs are bowed I have to place home-made rectangles of thin rigid plastic atop alternating frames to hold them flat, which lengthens the time it takes to scan, and is also an awkward faff to do. If I don't do this then the scans are slightly soft due to the middles of the shots being slightly out of focus (or, in more severe cases, I get Newton's rings where the negs are bowed enough to touch the scanner glass).

Thanks.
 
If you're satisfied with the scans apart from when the stated problem occurs, then it might be overkill to buy a whole new scanner - couldn't you modify the existing or a spare film carrier and make your improvisation permanent?
 
I assume you mean a 35mm Plustek? I can't help there unless we can extrapolate from the 35mm holders on the 120 scanner (which I haven't used or even unpacked, not being a 35mm person). On a different tack, years ago I had a negative carrier for an enlarger (I probably still have it in a darkroom drawer somewhere) that had lugs along the long side to hold the 35mm frame taut. Would it be possible to modify your film holder in a similar way?
 
A few years ago I bought an old Nikon Coolscan for my slides and an extra holder for negatives. Relatively speaking it was expensive but the results are so good that, although it is rarely used now, I still have the scanner sitting by my computer. I use ViewScan software.
 
You must be psychic Nige, (or maybe it's too much orange sunlight?) as I've been thinking about a Plustek 8100 this week too. I find my Epson V600 gives me nice looking scans from 120 film but I'm not as pleased with the results from 35mm. So I was thinking about getting a Plustek too, to run along side the Epson, the thinking being that I could run a batch of 35mm film through the Epson reasonably quickly, then scan any 'keepers' via the Plustek. I was thinking this might mitigate the downside of the Plustek in that it only scans one image at a time and has to have the neg carrier pushed along manually to scan the next frame.

I'm going to read a few more reviews and canvass some experienced opinion before making my mind up though, then if it would make a sensible option I'll probably put one my Christmas list . :) PS As for curly negs, try storing them (in their protective sleeves) sandwiched between a stack of a few heavy books for a week and I find they soon go nice and flat.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
If you're satisfied with the scans apart from when the stated problem occurs, then it might be overkill to buy a whole new scanner - couldn't you modify the existing or a spare film carrier and make your improvisation permanent?
Click to expand...

Better quality scans is the primary reason I'm considering one, but it'd be disappointing if I spent the cash and then found I had similar issues with bowed negs as I do with my Epson.

I'll be keeping the Epson whatever the case because it scans medium format very nicely. I'm essentially in the same boat as Mr Badger.
 
Mr Badger said:
Wasn't that an owl and a pussycat, rather than a fish and a badger? :confused: Anyway, if I find any relevant info on 35mm scanners I'll let you know. (y)
Click to expand...

I found this to be a pretty thorough series of pieces on the Plustek 8200i (which has infra-red scanning for dust removal, and a slightly more comprehensive version of Silverfast, but is otherwise the same hardware as the 8100). Given that most of my stuff is shot in B&W, for which IR dust removal won't work anyway, then the cheaper 8100 will suit me ok I reckon. I never use automatic dust removal on my Epson either.

http://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/plustek-8200i/index.html
 
You're both in the wrong boat, you need to be with the butcher/baker/candlestick maker cos I know for a fact the candlestick maker has an enlarger, you could borrow that and scan your prints with any old cack flatbed.......:D
 
I have a Plustek 7500i, which is very like the 8xxx series except it came with SilverFast 6 rather than 8. I don't think the hardware has moved on much.

As already said, the 35mm film strip holder does hold film much flatter than the Epson version. It can be fiddly getting a film strip in place and properly located; I have a technique where I hold it in place with the ball of a finger on the rebate, while holding the top part of the holder bent upwards, then letting it spring shut as I remove my finger! Works nearly always, and I haven't seen evidence of fingerprints so far.

Other advantages of the Plustek: the version I have comes with infra-red dust removal; no use for black and white (except XP2 etc) or Kodachromes, but quite useful for C41 and E6. Associated with that: the scan registration is very good, so the scanner can do reliable multiple passes. For dust removal, that's (at least) one image capture pass followed by one infrared pass; the latter sees no (or very little) image but does see the dust particles, and software can then subtract one from the other and fill the gaps. It can also do multi-exposure, with a slower pass at higher intensity blasting a bit more into the shadow areas in E6 (or the highlight areas in negative film). It can also do multi-pass, where the results of each pass are combined, supposedly leading to a reduction in noise. I don't have objective evidence that it works, but I've certainly convinced myself enough to use it on images I'm more interested in; subjectively I think the results are smoother.

The headline resolution is also better, but more to the point the tests that filmscanner.info did showed that the Plusteks do resolve better than the Epsons (lower numbers like V500, at least).

On the con side, you can only do one frame at a time, it's manual advance, and for the film strip holder you're pretty much stuck with 135 format. I did manage to scan some slides in one of the other formats (126 I think), but you couldn't do a XPan negative, for instance.

Nevertheless, I much prefer it to the Epson V500 for scanning 135.
 
Have you looked at the holders supplied by BetterScanning ? I use one of their medium format holders with my Epson V700 but for 35mm this one might be useful:

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html

This holds the film down with anti-newton glass

On a slightly different note, when I started used 4x5 film I was surprised by how flat it lies - both TMax and Fomapan 100 - I had wrongly thought that a bigger film would be more floppy.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Allan said:
Have you looked at the holders supplied by BetterScanning ? I use one of their medium format holders with my Epson V700 but for 35mm this one might be useful:

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html

This holds the film down with anti-newton glass

On a slightly different note, when I started used 4x5 film I was surprised by how flat it lies - both TMax and Fomapan 100 - I had wrongly thought that a bigger film would be more floppy.
Click to expand...

I did look at those but the main reason I'm thinking about a Plustek is the quality increase. The AN inserts would probably solve most of the problems I have with bowed negatives, but looking at the instructions on their use, they'd only allow me to scan five frames at a time in just one of the slots.
 
It was the extra resolution and detail I was hoping to get too; as for curly negs I think I could save money and solve the issue by just putting them under some heavy books for a day or two. I found some yesterday while tidying my desk that had inadvertently had that treatment and they were as flat as you like!
 
My Plustek negative holders hold very curved negatives quite flat but they can be awkward to keep in position while you close the holder top. That holder top clips into place so it is secure once closed.

Best thing is to dry your negatives flat.
 
john.margetts said:
Best thing is to dry your negatives flat.
Click to expand...

At first when I read that, I took it as irony, or "as if by magic"... then on second reading I thought, this man has a technique for drying negatives flat! If so, please do share!
 
The Plustek holders are quite good - and I think if your workflow is limited to 35mm, their scanners probably represent the best quality to value ratio.
 
ChrisR said:
At first when I read that, I took it as irony, or "as if by magic"... then on second reading I thought, this man has a technique for drying negatives flat! If so, please do share!
Click to expand...
In my experience, fast drying encourages curl as does drying in bright sunlight. So, my technique: dry slowly away from the window.

Some films will curl no matter what you do, mind.
 
yep, mine dry overnight in the darkroom, probably just under room temp.
haven't had too much trouble with curling except delta 3200, that stuff is proper springy but I think that might be related to the emulsion, I dunno.
whatever, I'm really only commenting on 120, 35mm doesn't seem to have as much potential for becoming terribly uneven.
I don't think I encounter the same problems detailed here, my enlarger carriers flatten everything pretty good, the glass carrier is even better but I can't be doing with all the extra surfaces that need dusting.
My Minolta scanner is dedicated, I have no trouble with that either for 35mm, the 120 carrier is glass so that's as good as it gets.
I kinda think that flatbed carriers generally aren't that well designed, there is a limit to the rigidity that can be engineered in to them, whereas the dedicated carriers are used to transport the film as well as hold it.
 
Bump!

Well, 18 months after starting this thread, after selling some stuff on eBay, I decided to buy a Plustek 8100 for home scanning 135 format negatives. I've not really gotten to grips with Silverfast yet (which is bundled with the scanner), but there's a noticable improvement in scan quality. Here's a comparison of the same negative with the same post processing scanned on the Plustek (left) and Epson V550 (right). Both are scanned at 2400dpi for a fair comparison. I'll be using the Plustek at 3600 though as it does resolve some extra detail (whereas when I increase the resolution of the V550 above 2400 I don't notice any extra detail at all, just a bigger image).


plustek 8100 vs Epson v550 by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

Here's a comparison of the Plustek at 3600 and 2400dpi.


plustek 8100 3600 vs 2400 dpi by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
I would have liked to be able to see them larger, but Flickr won't let me.

It certainly shows how individual preference can play a part, as to me the Epson scans are better :(
 
Well, the plustek looks sharper, its what I'd expect vs a flatbed.
That's not to say you can't get decent scans out of a flatbed, it just takes more effort.
There appears to be a marked difference in contrast, I don't think its a significant consideration when evaluating scans.
I've never liked flatbeds, seen some great scans from them but generally mine have always been soft without significant faffing.
Dedicated scanners just seem to spit em out reasonably sharp no matter what.
There are other things to consider like DR, gradation/colour reproduction but I don't think those are areas where flatbeds fall down vs dedicated.
 
joxby said:
Well, the plustek looks sharper, its what I'd expect vs a flatbed.
There appears to be a marked difference in contrast, I don't think its a significant consideration when evaluating scans.
Click to expand...

That's probably down to the way the histogram settings work differently in Silverfast and Epson Scan and my getting slightly differently contrasted base-scans as a result. I think I prefer the way it works in Epson Scan, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of Silverfast after a bit more practice.
 
I don't set any levels, I just let the scanner scan and make adjustments afterwards with editing software
yeah they're pretty flat after scanning but its the nearest I can get to forcing the scanner software to mind its own business...:)
 
Last edited:
I've found my Epson V600 seems to scan best at 3200 dpi, anything either side of this seems to lose out on sharpness. So perhaps try a comparison between the Plustek and the Epson at 3200 and see if the difference is less noticeable? I'd still expect the Plustek to win though... until you want to scan 120 roll film! ;)
 
Mr Badger said:
I've found my Epson V600 seems to scan best at 3200 dpi, anything either side of this seems to lose out on sharpness. So perhaps try a comparison between the Plustek and the Epson at 3200 and see if the difference is less noticeable? I'd still expect the Plustek to win though... until you want to scan 120 roll film! ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the V550 isn’t going anywhere as long as I have a MF camera. :)
 
FishyFish said:
Try these links Stephen:

Plustek vs Epson @ 2400 dpi

Plustek 2400 vs 3600 dpi
Click to expand...

No good. I still don't have permission to view private photos.

On my monitor with my eyes, the Plustek looked to have too much contrast, and the grain was far, far too obtrusive. Those who know me know that I can't stand grain, which is why I avoid 35mm and fast films like FP4 whenever I can in medium format. The ability of an Imacon scanner to pick up grain was one reason why one photographer preferred the Epson V750 in a magazine review a few years ago (Paul Gallagher; Professional Imagemaker).

I don't have the Plustek 35mm scanner, but I do have the roll film one, and use VueScan with both, which presumably cuts out one variable. The Plustek scanner does capture slightly more detail than the V700 I compared it to, but not a lot, and you have to look hard at 100% to spot the difference. Correction: I have to look hard to spot the difference.
 
Last edited:
PS There are a couple of things that create an illusion of sharpness without actually changing the level of detail captured; contrast and visible grain. Both are present in the Plustek scan, which was why I would have liked to see the actual detail captured.
 
StephenM said:
PS There are a couple of things that create an illusion of sharpness without actually changing the level of detail captured; contrast and visible grain. Both are present in the Plustek scan, which was why I would have liked to see the actual detail captured.
Click to expand...

I’ll do a couple of 100% crops when I’m back on my PC. There’s definitely an increase of detail from the Plustek, beyond the grain and contrast.

I’ve got some 135 Pan F 50 negs, so I’ll try scanning one of those.
 
Last edited:
Its not easy to determine anything when you have scan software interference.
It is interesting to note what a straight no software interference scan from both looks like, the raw material from both machines just to see how much work each one would need comparatively to bring it up to acceptability, bearing in mind that what is acceptable varies from person to person.
 
They look a lot better to me, whether that is because of the software or not who really cares? It's producing results that you're happy with and that is what counts.

FWIW I tend to scan at 2400dpi to keep the file size down at around 20mb. The 3600dpi scans of mine are usually around 50mb. I know memory is cheap these days but it keeps the files more manageable for further work in LR or Photoshop. For general shots this is fine, if I find anything that I like and want to print I'll scan that at 3600dpi for slightly better resolution.

I've found Silverfast to be very good. It looks daunting, but as with a lot of software I only use 20% of it, and it is far easier in my opinion, to get usable results than from say Vuescan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top