The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Some scanner help would be appreciated

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I just loaded the first roll of 120 film into my newly acquired Rolleiflex. I bought some mailers from B+H and plan to just have a set of small prints made for the near term.

I have a Nikon V that has worked very well for 35mm scanning. I am investigating which way to go on an upgrade that will handle 120 film. I have been reading everything I can find on the subject. My dilemma is do I spend $1000 buying an Epson 750V and a wet mounting device or do I need to spend more?
 

robmac

Well-known member
If the funds are available Cindy - do the Nikon 9000 and sell the V to help offset the costs. The 9000 is as good at 120 and 35 as your V and my 5000ED (was) at 35. It will do both formats (slowly - no bulk loaders), but multi-sampling, etc.

Probably the best your going to get short of a Hassy or drum scanner, etc. I also believe you can wet mount - though that may not be as necessary vs using a flatbed.

A flatbed will do an ok job, but will never be the same as a dedicated film scanner. Getting film height above the glass is CRUCIAL as is flatness, etc. when using a flatbed. I'd only consider that route personally if I already had the 750 or had docs and/or large format film to do.

In short, if you're going to stay with 120 film to any extent, you'll thank yourself by up-scaling on the scanner if your budget allows. the V750, as nice as it is, is still a compromise.

That's my advice anyway. If you can call in a favor, you might be able to find someone here who has both a 750 for LF and maybe a 9000 and have them get you access to like 120 scans via FTP. From what I've seen, there is a very notable difference.
 

robmac

Well-known member
Just thinking 120 - the upcoming Cv Bessa III (not to mention that 500CM kit on B&S) has got me thinking of doing some nasty things to my budget.

My problem is that I also don't have a scanner. My 5000Ed was sold (stupid) and while I have a 4990, I wouldn't even consider using it for film - no matter how many film holders they sell it with.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I've heard similar stories about the Nikon 9000. Seems like an excellent choice. I've also heard that you probably want the optional glass carrier for 120/220 which is about $340 on top the roughly $2,000 for the scanner. For rationalization purposes, about the same money as a mint 75 lux. :eek:
 

Ocean

Senior Subscriber Member
Cindy,

As I mentioned in Tim's post regarding the Rolleiflex earlier http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=81623#post81623, I highly recommend the Nikon 9000. I have been using it for 35mm, 35mm pano, and 6x6 for more than 5 years now.

You do need to get a glass film carrier for MF for better results. Since I mount my slides in Gape glass slide mount (for projection), I have not used Nikon's glass film carrier. Nikon has a dedicated carrier for mounted MF slides.

As for scanning software, some people use vuescan and SilveFast. I have not tried those and been very happy with the Nikon supplied software, NikonScan.

Here are two quick scans of some snaps, the first one is 35mm with Summilux 35 ASPH and the second one 6x6 with Rolleiflex 3.5FH. Fuji Provia film used for both.

Kind regards.
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
Thanks RobMac and Ocean for the info. I guess there is no free lunch. I was hoping to stay in the $1000 range, but it looks like I must increase my budget. Some of Tim's rationalization will be in order.:ROTFL:

I already use vuescan, so I will stick to that. Staying in the Nikon family will probably keep the learning curve at a minimum.

Thanks for the samples, Ocean. They are both very nice. I am especially happy to see all of the detail in the Rollei photo.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Here's a tip on those film mailers Cindy ... don't mail them individually. Put multiple mailers/rolls in a box and send them that way. The Post office is fond of losing the individual mailers.
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
Here's a tip on those film mailers Cindy ... don't mail them individually. Put multiple mailers/rolls in a box and send them that way. The Post office is fond of losing the individual mailers.
I will do that Marc. Thanks for the advice.
 

robmac

Well-known member
No worries Cindy.

I tended to find the film scanned dictated the software used. Many of the films I tried did better with SF vs Nikonscan, but some films like Portra 160 & 400NC were just amazing with the stock Nikon software.

Portrait 160NC (135) shots from an R8 with a late 90 Elmarit processed with NS at 16x sampling were virtually identical to the same shots, same lens, 2 mins later done with a Canon 30D. had to double check that I didn't have two copies of the 30D shots.

Ocean - that first shot (Venice ?) is amazing.
 
N

nei1

Guest
I use a minolta 5400 for 35mm and I think it will out scan any nikon.they made an excellent multiscanner for 120 which is pretty expensive second hand but cheaper and I think better than the nikon,the problem is maintenance of course although Ive had no problems with mine.
 

robmac

Well-known member
The Minoltas DO have a VERY strong rep - as witnessed by fact that 2nd hand prices have soared since they were discontinued.

I normally don't pay attention to Ken R, but his site does have some comments on various Nikon/Minolta scanners that can at least give you a starting point for research if you think you can find a clean used one.

Ocean - Florence it is. The color, tonality and detail of the hots are just great. the first is my fave of the two for the poses and colors in the costumes.
 

helenhill

Senior Member
I went to B&H Today
looking at Scanners.... :ROTFL:
I have narrowed it down to Two

Nikon 9000 /$1995.00 ...The Dream scanner
Epson 750 / $795.00 ...The Practical & Exc Scanner
:D
 

kevinparis

Member
i have a plustek 7300 - cost around 250 euros. Comes with silverfast software while probably clever suffers from the UI from hell. Ended up buying Vuescan which has a better workflow.

wish i could say more about it...so far i have used it mainly to do lo-res previews of old negs for cataloguing... but today, after developing my second film of the weekend, the external power supply died on me.. so i cant give any real feedback beyond that this is what i pulled from a very old forgotten neg last week.

My research indicated that the flatbeds like the epson were better for formats bigger than 35 mm. The Nikons are supposed to be the best... but then again apart from plustek they seem to be the only game in town

scanning b/w seems to be a minefield I haven't yet navigated - there is lots of conflicting info. General indication is that XP2 and other C-41 developed films are easier to scan than traditional tri-x/hp5

I am still on the learning curve on this and will share experience

a) as soon as i get the power-supply fixed
b) I am more confident in my long dormant developing skills

oh and

c) when i take delivery of a battered Leica CL....have to beg Cams lenses and actually have real film negs to get right. Though I suppose I do have an old Nikon film camera and a nice set of lenses i could be working on now:)


cheers

K
 
Last edited:

robmac

Well-known member
Tell me about it. If window shopping were fatal I'd have been dead a long time ago.

The 9000 doesn't come up often used, but with more folks bailing from film...a WTB here, on the RFF and say LL might not be a bad idea when the penny jar gets full enough. Am in same boat. Want to shoot film with digital but want flexibility of scanning MF and 135.

That said just acquired a CV 58 SLII and CV 75/2.5 SL that haven't even arrived yet and my Mac is starting to smoke with my PS work on my 1Ds2 files, so the (much) better half is just ignoring my mutterings about 'scanners'.

At present I'm counting my PENNIES
and can't even Afford Used... but its Fun to window shop...:ROTFL::rolleyes::p
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
...snip...
c) when i take delivery of a battered Leica CL....have to beg Cams lenses and actually have real film negs to get right. Though I suppose I do have an old Nikon film camera and a nice set of lenses i could be working on now:)


cheers

K[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the little boy is saying: " I don't need no stinking G1!":ROTFL::ROTFL:
Congratulations on the new CL.
 

robmac

Well-known member
I found it really does vary by film and even by shot (contrast, etc) within a film. The software can also be a big determinate. Some films scan better with X vs Y.

My experience before selling my 5000 ED (idiot...) was same as you'd seen. C41 processed B&W, on average, scanned better (for B&W). That said 'better' is a relative thing. I have a print on Epson VFA scanned from Tri-X that is as contrasty and grainy as hell, but wife and I just love it.

Films like the Kodak Portras scan REALLY well so if scanning B&W emulsions proves really annoying (as many find it), scanning a nice late-design color film (more designed with scanning in mind), allowing sue of ICE and then using SilverEffex to convert to B&W and tweak the grain and contrast curve more to your liking would be an option.

There is the whole B&W tonality argument of B&W vs. color film, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. ;>

i have a plustek 7300 - cost around 250 euros. Comes with silverfast software while probably clever suffers from the UI from hell. Ended up buying Vuescan which has a better workflow.

wish i could say more about it...so far i have used it mainly to do lo-res previews of old negs for cataloguing... but today, after developing my second film of the weekend, the external power supply died on me.. so i cant give any real feedback beyond that this is what i pulled from a very old forgotten neg last week.

My research indicated that the flatbeds like the epson were better for formats bigger than 35 mm. The Nikons are supposed to be the best... but then again apart from plustek they seem to be the only game in town

scanning b/w seems to be a minefield I haven't yet navigated - there is lots of conflicting info. General indication is that XP2 and other C-41 developed films are easier to scan than traditional tri-x/hp5

I am still on the learning curve on this and will share experience

a) as soon as i get the power-supply fixed
b) I am more confident in my long dormant developing skills

oh and

c) when i take delivery of a battered Leica CL....have to beg Cams lenses and actually have real film negs to get right. Though I suppose I do have an old Nikon film camera and a nice set of lenses i could be working on now:)


cheers

K
 

robertwright

New member
since there is such a difference in price between the two scanners you are considering, you might want to factor in the size you will be printing to.

If you are only scanning MF and if you only want to print up to 13x19 I think you will be well served with the epson.

35mm scanned on the epson might leave you wanting, but if you only print to 11x14 I think you'll be fine.

(Friedlander made a career out of 11x14 from 35mm...if its good enough for him...)

If you want to print any larger you have no choice but the nikon.

I bought an epson 4990 for 4x5 and 8x10, and it does a good job on those, which is not saying much.

fyi-th epson scanners are really only half the rated resolution. My 4990 is something like 4800dpi but that is really fuzzy. 2000ppi is about right. So from 35mm you can get 10 inches on the long side, maybe 14.
 
Top