scanner for film and negative

[terence_patrick]

The Nikon 9000 is an amazing scanner for the price. I used to work at Saatchi & Saatchi in LA and our in-house production MF scanner was a 9000. Rarely did we ever farm out film for drum scans unless it was a big job that had a lot of material to scan through. For a lot of the outdoor signage that Toyota had done, the 9000 was our workhorse.

At the magazine I work at now, I purchased for myself a 9000 and the negs from my 'Blad & RZ look brilliant on the printed page. The only thing holding back any potential quality is me, because admittedly, I'm not an expert at scanning (luckily, Vuescan is pretty easy to get consistent results). I just go with what works and try not to fuss over theoretical mumbo jumbo. I highly recommend the Nikon.

[TMARK]

I had a 343.  It was great.  Not much better, if at all, than the Nikon 9000.  Slightly better than the Microtek 120TF, which is a great scanner.  I sold the 343 when I bought into Canon digital, bought a 9000, sold the 9000 as I started shooting mainly digital and/or going to Print Space to print film, then realized that my scans were better than 1ds2 files so I bought the Microtek 120tf.

The Microtek uses Silverfast which is nice software, not as nice as Flexcolor but fine.

I also have a V700 for 4x5 and find the quality hit or mis.

[Frank Doorhof]

@Tmark,
Play with the spacers on the V700.
There is little mention of this in the manual, but turn arround the spacers and you will raise your tranny, this is an INCREDIBLE gain in sharpness for scans of MF.

One of the reasons I went for the betterscanning is that you can fine tine the distance of it.
The V700/V750 are best at app 3.5mm above the glass.

Try it if you are using the standard spacers settings.

[erick.boileau]

Thanks to all :-)

 I shall go to Photokina in Köln in September  and look for Imacon

[erick.boileau]

@hcubell

what are your settings for Capture One  sharpening ?  any negative number ?

[jing q]

The IMACON scanners are far above the Nikon and Epson scanners.  They are very close to drum scan quality.

I own an Imacon and continue to shoot medium format color neg film (portra) and am very pleased with the Imacon and the Flexcolor software.  The profiles are very good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the nikon 9000 doesn't match up to the Imacon, especially in the shadow areas
I always found the nikon abit too harsh in its colour and contrast.

[TMARK]

@Tmark,
Play with the spacers on the V700.
There is little mention of this in the manual, but turn arround the spacers and you will raise your tranny, this is an INCREDIBLE gain in sharpness for scans of MF.

One of the reasons I went for the betterscanning is that you can fine tine the distance of it.
The V700/V750 are best at app 3.5mm above the glass.

Try it if you are using the standard spacers settings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I've done that.  I even made some shims to increase the height even more.  The real problem is that the "low res" lens is really not great, and that is the lens that is used when the V700 scans 4x5.  

I can get good color with SilverFast, but shadow detail is lacking.  I'm mainly scanning FPO, so its no big deal, but still.

For MF scans I use my Microtek, which is very good.  About the same as the Nikon.

[gwhitf]

I used the Imacon Photo for years. I bought the Epson V750 recently.

I don't know your style, but if resolution and sharpness is the goal, none of them can compete with a digital file. Not even close.

I find the V750 with Silverfast to be barely acceptable. I got the same 120 color neg scanned at my lab, on a drum scanner, and compared to the Epson 750, it blew the Epson away in sharpness and shadow detail and overall look.

The Imacon software is very good with negative material. But make sure you can get a non-SCSI model; otherwise too much hassle.

Again, if smoothness and sharpness is your goal, if you ever go back and try to scan film, you're reminded of just how good digital files really are -- even a low end camera.

When I shoot film/neg, my new rule is -- send it out to a real pro, for a scan. None of these desktop models can compete.

Just one opinion.

[adrian tyler]

i was looking at the imacon a couple of years ago till a kind gentelman inforemed me (over at the large format forum) that the creo iqsmart3 outperforms the imacon in every respect, it does, i got one and am very glad for that advice...

ps search on this topic over there lots of advice and tests.

adrian

[bcooter]

Film is pretty but  looking at a film scan next to modern digital is nowhere close.

I have used all the flat bed scanners and nothing is as good as a oil mounted drum scan.

I have also tried the people in India, but it's way too complicated and time consuming to save a few dollars.  If your photo is worth scanning, it's worth scanning well.

Save yourself the time, expense, the waste of life spotting and cleaning up dust spots and send your films to John Olson at Nancy Scans.

They come back perfect, they will work you a favorable deal on pricing.

Nobody grew up dreaming of being a scanner operator.



Bruno

[TMARK]

I used the Imacon Photo for years. I bought the Epson V750 recently.

I don't know your style, but if resolution and sharpness is the goal, none of them can compete with a digital file. Not even close.

I find the V750 with Silverfast to be barely acceptable. I got the same 120 color neg scanned at my lab, on a drum scanner, and compared to the Epson 750, it blew the Epson away in sharpness and shadow detail and overall look.

The Imacon software is very good with negative material. But make sure you can get a non-SCSI model; otherwise too much hassle.

Again, if smoothness and sharpness is your goal, if you ever go back and try to scan film, you're reminded of just how good digital files really are -- even a low end camera.

When I shoot film/neg, my new rule is -- send it out to a real pro, for a scan. None of these desktop models can compete.

Just one opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the desktop scanners are fine if you are making prints for your book.  An 11x14 from a 4x5 scan (V700) or an 11x14 from 6x7 or 6x6 looks pretty good.  Better shadow detail and color than the last generation of dslrs.  For more critical purposes, a drumscan is where it is at.

[Chris_Brown]

I've used an Epson flatbed, then an Imacon and finally a Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner. Once mounting and input parameters have been mastered, nothing compares to the results of a drum scanner, especially with 35mm chromes. If your going to go through the process of archiving years of film and want the absolute best results, a good drum scanner will deliver and you'll not have any regrets later.

FYI, there's one for sale here (not by me).

[hubell]

@hcubell

what are your settings for Capture One  sharpening ?  any negative number ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't use Capture One, but my understanding is that you can only turn off USM in the raw conversion by going into Preferences where I think there is a box you can check or uncheck. Someone who is more  familiar with Capture One can provide you with definitive advice.

[narikin]

Erick, what film are you scanning - color negative or transparency ("dia").

transparency have a bigger dynamic range and ask more of a scanner, so you may benefit from spending more money,
negatives (b/w or color) have less dynamic range, so ask less from a scanner, and good desktop machines (Nikon 9000 etc) manage that with 99% of the results of a drum.

its only when you get into difficult dark transparencies that you might need to spend more.