Negative scanners

[simon ess]

Hi folks.

I'm looking to get a 35mm negative scanner in the near future.

I see the Epson V500 mentioned a lot, but there seems to be some doubt about how good it is for 35mm negatives.

Currently leaning towards the Plustek 8100.

For my budget of £250 max is this a good option?

Should I be looking at anything else?

Many thanks.

 

[Knikki]

Reading around the Epson V range are very good scanners, however they are all flat bed scanners so will do documents as well as films and other things.

One thing noted about the flat beds are that the larger the negative is the better they perform and are not noted for their 35mm performance.

I think a couple of people on here have them so they should be able to better advice than me.

The Plusteks seem to have a bit of a love/hate relationship on here, but having not used one I can't pass comment.

You could search e-bay for things like Nikon Coolscan or Minolta Dimage machines as they are dedicated film scanners and can do both 35mm. However some of them can do 120 as ell but I think they will out of the price range.

 

[freecom2]

The Plustek 8100 has identical hardware to the cheaper 7400 - just with newer software. It's your choice whether you want the additional software upgrade (just have a quick Google to hear the number of rants and upsets over the Silverfast software supplied with their scanners), but all you are paying for is software. If the hardware is all that matters, the 7400 is the same scanner and saves you a fair bit as well.

 

[Morinaka]

It really depends if you plan to do medium format film photography in the future. If you are then the Epson V500 lets you scan both 35mm and medium format films and has an infrared scanner for dust removal using Digital ICE (only works with colour negative film). You can also scan up to 12 frames of 35mm in a row as well, thought only one or two for medium format.

If you only plan to do 35mm then the Plustek is the far better option. The 8100 lacks an infrared channel for dust/defect removal, which from their website also seems to work with slide film as well though doesn't mention black and white. If you need dust and defect removal then you'll have to spend about £275 and get the 8200i SE with the IR channel, otherwise just get the 8100. I've heard the Silverfast software it comes with is a bit hard to use so keep that in mind, can try Vuescan if it is.

I own and use an Epson V500 and I don't bother using infrared dust removal on it anymore, takes ages and never seems to do much to me and doesn't work for colour slide or black and white anyway. I find the 35mm scan results fine, low contrast and flat like most flat bed scans but i can bring it back to life in Lightroom anyway, just have to amp the contrast and sharpen more than usual.

Edit: freecom2 is right about the hardware, substitute 8100 for 7400 and 8200i SE for 7600i SE.

 

[s162216]

It really depends if you plan to do medium format film photography in the future. If you are then the Epson V500 lets you scan both 35mm and medium format films and has an infrared scanner for dust removal using Digital ICE (only works with colour negative film). You can also scan up to 12 frames of 35mm in a row as well, thought only one or two for medium format.

If you only plan to do 35mm then the Plustek is the far better option. The 8100 lacks an infrared channel for dust/defect removal, which from their website also seems to work with slide film as well though doesn't mention black and white. If you need dust and defect removal then you'll have to spend about £275 and get the 8200i SE with the IR channel, otherwise just get the 8100. I've heard the Silverfast software it comes with is a bit hard to use so keep that in mind, can try Vuescan if it is.

I own and use an Epson V500 and I don't bother using infrared dust removal on it anymore, takes ages and never seems to do much to me and doesn't work for colour slide or black and white anyway. I find the 35mm scan results fine, low contrast and flat like most flat bed scans but i can bring it back to life in Lightroom anyway, just have to amp the contrast and sharpen more than usual.

Edit: freecom2 is right about the hardware, substitute 8100 for 7400 and 8200i SE for 7600i SE.

I would agree with that, but just to point out IR dust/scratch removal such as Digital ICE/FARE/iSRD work with any non-black and white film, not just colour negative (with the exception of C-41 B&W film as their effectively colour negative and depending on the scanner, possibly Kodachrome although iSRD and Digital ICE4 works with it)

 

[simon ess]

Thanks a lot folks.

I will only be doing B+W 35mm.

So, the Plustek 7400 is looking like a good option.

To be clear though, are the issues reported about the Epson's poor performance on 35mm just down to people not wanting to post process for contrast and sharpness?

I have no issue with that, and it would be nice to have the option for 120 format if that itch develops in future.

It might well

 

[excalibur2]

Thanks a lot folks.

I will only be doing B+W 35mm.

So, the Plustek 7400 is looking like a good option.

To be clear though, are the issues reported about the Epson's poor performance on 35mm just down to people not wanting to post process for contrast and sharpness?

I have no issue with that, and it would be nice to have the option for 120 format if that itch develops in future.

It might well

erm The Epson is not poor but just nothing extra special for 35mm, and of course you can use Photoshop to improve a shot but it would look digital eventually.

Here are my examples:-

Hexanon 28mm, Reala.

V750 scan and crop

de-noised

 

[freecom2]

To be clear though, are the issues reported about the Epson's poor performance on 35mm just down to people not wanting to post process for contrast and sharpness?

My experience with an Epson 4180, V700 and Plustek 7200:

It's not a case of not wanting to post process - I shouldn't need to post process sharpness into my negative which was taken with a precision camera and a sharp lens. I know there is always a degree of sharpness lost when scanning, but that is exacerbated with scanning on the relatively flimsy Epson film holders and using a flatbed, which is far from an exact science in the world of scanning. The Plustek, and other dedicated film scanners, are much better for this. Whilst it is scanning images one at a time manually, the filmstrip holders are better with most dedicated scanners.

 

[simon ess]

Thanks again. I really appreciate your input.

Speed is not really a requirement. Quality is top priority.

Are there any scanners other than the Plustek I should consider within my budget?

 

[excalibur2]

Well I don't mind the Epson 35mm neg holders with a flat colour neg (all mine are flat), but the 120 holders are not very good.

 

[freecom2]

Are there any scanners other than the Plustek I should consider within my budget?

I've had a look and thought about it and, aside from the flatbeds (mostly Epson offerings with a smattering of Canon models) and the Plusteks, not really.

The 35mm holders aren't too bad, the 120 are essentially the same design but because of the bigger negative there is a greater tendency to sag in the middle. I usually have my negatives completely flat before I scan them so it helps in that department, but just another quirk to have to accommodate for.

However, if you are even slightly contemplating the idea of moving to medium format, the Epson V series is pretty much your best bet unless you have a massive budget. That's something for you to decide and weigh up really.

 

[Morinaka]

I did forget one slightly less conventional option if you already own a DSLR, using one of those Opteka slide copier adapters for lenses (unless you have a full frame DSLR then any slide copier would work fine), but the reviews for them are rather a mixed bag so it's not something i would endorse.

I've looked up those BetterScanning film holders before but the info on the site is so lacking in information and pictures i'm reluctant to drop any money on them.

 

[AJQS]

I did forget one slightly less conventional option if you already own a DSLR, using one of those Opteka slide copier adapters for lenses (unless you have a full frame DSLR then any slide copier would work fine), but the reviews for them are rather a mixed bag so it's not something i would endorse.

Perfect - been looking for something like that for ages, worth seeing if the S3 can come up trumps against my dedicated Minolta! Would certainly be nice to be able to play with negatives as raw files.

 

[Morinaka]

I have only tried a similar thing once before using an old jessops slide copier and my Nikon D5000 but the slide copier was designed for 35mm format so it cropped the image but it was good enough to see the result which was noticeably sharper than my flatbed scans. I have been tempted to get the Opteka in in the past and try it out but the mixed reviews kind of put me off. If you are buying i'd love to see some results against the Minolta.

 

[dalex_257]

I've looked up those BetterScanning film holders before but the info on the site is so lacking in information and pictures i'm reluctant to drop any money on them.

I mentioned that as alternative quite a few times already on TP. To keep the film flat I use Scanassist (see TP post here) - very cheap solution and fantastic for the job. They are used with standard Epson holders and are a lot cheaper than BetterScanning ones.

 

[freecom2]

I've got a ScanAssist for Epson 4490/4990 going spare here if anyone wants it - I bought it for a 4180 but it wasn't compatible. It's the 120 sized one.

 

[Cuchulainn]

I discussed my scanner holder for 120 film before in the thread here with the details for calibration a few posts down.

A picture of it is in this post.

I'm using it as I type and it's still doing the trick!