Scanner Advice

[Mike Sellers]

I have some 6x4.5 transparencies to scan and I was wondering if the Leaf45 scanner would be a good choice or would the Epson V750 be a better choice? I would probably use fluid immersion on the Epson.
Mike

[Mark D Segal]

I haven't tried a Leaf scanner, hence I cannot give you first hand advice about the quality of its output, but you may wish to look here http://www.silverfast.com/show/scanners-leaf-45/en.html and here http://www.silverfast.com/show/scanners-leaf-compatibility/en.html for some guidance on quality and compatibility. As you probably know, they are no longer produced, so you depend on after-market support. Additional information here http://www.leafstuff.com/ls45scsi.htm. The Epson V750 is a current model and does a respectable job with medium format film. This model provides a glass flatbed on which you can affix the media using film cleaner. This is a safe and easy way of holding the film flat during scanning, with nothing to clean-up afterward.

[BernardLanguillier]

I would consider second hand Imacon scanners if you are serious about the quality of your scans.

The scsi ones like my Precision III are a bit of a pain to use on recent computers but the results are excellent! Way better a 2040dpi than any Epson (i own a 750 also), they are not even close.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Mark D Segal]

In second-hand MF scanners, a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 may be as good or better value than an Imacon - but hard to find these days because they are discontinued and demand is persistent.

[BernardLanguillier]

In second-hand MF scanners, a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 may be as good or better value than an Imacon - but hard to find these days because they are discontinued and demand is persistent.

I used to own both, the Nikon is of course more convenient, but pretty far behind qualitywise when dry scanning. It seems that wet scanning closes some of the gap, but that really is a pain.

Now, the #1 advantage of the Nikon is ICE dust removal that can save a huge amount of time, at the cost of a bit of additional sharpness. It really depends on your degree of dedication in terms of maintaining a clean environment and in cleaning slides before scanning.

DR is where the Imacon shines on hard to scan films like Velvia.

[Mark D Segal]

I used to own both, the Nikon is of course more convenient, but pretty far behind qualitywise when dry scanning. It seems that wet scanning closes some of the gap, but that really is a pain.

Now, the #1 advantage of the Nikon is ICE dust removal that can save a huge amount of time, at the cost of a bit of additional sharpness. It really depends on your degree of dedication in terms of maintaining a clean environment and in cleaning slides before scanning.

DR is where the Imacon shines on hard to scan films like Velvia.

The Nikon equipped with SilverFast uses iSRD rather than ICE - it's superior in terms of user control over detection and mitigation and preserves image detail very well.

As for resolution and DR, if you were to measure both scanners using relevant targets, based on my experience with 35mm, I suspect you'd find the differences to be very small, but I have not made such comparisons myself for MF so I won't hang my neck out on that one. The depth and tonality of usable shadow detail you can obtain from these scanners also depends importantly on software, and you can do some remarkable things combining SilverFast with Lightroom, for example.

The whole idea of wet scanning scared me until I tried doing it with film cleaner on the recommendation of a staffer at LaserSoft Imaging. He was right  - this makes it really quite tolerable.