Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Scanners / Scanner Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Is Medium Format the best for Film Scanners under $1K?
Old 01-06-2017   #1
Dovo
Registered User
 
Dovo is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 18
Is Medium Format the best for Film Scanners under $1K?

I would like to start shooting film again and was hoping to go 35mm but it seems like the cheap sub $1k scanners are not well liked for 35mm

I know scanning film is not fun but what would be the least painful way to do it?

Is a flatbed scanner like a Epson V850 best or are the 35mm dedicated scanners like the Plustek 8200 ai or the new 135 better?

I don't want to have to fiddle around much to get the images digitized. I also don't want to go the route of some 10 year old unsupported scanner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-06-2017   #2
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 1,699
I use a very inexpensive 35mm Plustek Optifilm 8100 purchased second hand for only $250 Australian and while I haven't printed anything from it, the sampled down 3600 dpi images for web use are just fine and indistinguishable from my broken Minolta MultiScan pro.

All of the images here were scanned with it.

http://johnmcd.zenfolio.com/f958035263

and here http://johnmcd.zenfolio.com/p975704314

Perfect for sharing and if the neg is good I wet print it. I hope to make a photo book later in the year of my grandaughter and I'm sure scans for that resolution will be fine also.

Hope this helps - John
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Crown Graphic 4x5

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #3
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,709
I haven't used dedicated 35mm film scanners. I've used a V700 to scan 35mm negs and transparencies, and have been able to produce from those scans pleasing A4 prints on a quality inkjet (Epson 3880).
__________________
Lynn
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #5
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 284
I find wet printing much more fun, but the least painful scanner I've ever used is definitely my Pakon 135. It scans an entire roll in one strip, takes about ten minutes and produces great colour without hours of messing about in Photoshop. You need to be able to run Windows XP (a virtual environment is fine) and the software isn't very intuitive. Easy enough when you have scanned a few rolls though.

Highly recommended, as is the Facebook Pakon group who will get you up and running if you want to go that route.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #6
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 511
Another vote for PlusTek series
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #7
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,532
I did some experiments scanning 120 film, 6x9 from a Mamiya Press with the superb 100 f/2.8 lens.

Using the inexpensive V500, I find I get quite nice prints at 12x18" from my V500 scans. That's a print of about 6x the linear dimension of the film.

This thread has much more, from me and others, including a sample image ready to print 12x18". And, in case you want to skip to the 12x18 sample image, here it is (8MB)

__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Konica Auto S2, Voigtlander VC Meter II, and a pair of XA-2's
Giveaway: Voigtlander Vitoret, Point-N-Shoots
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #8
Dovo
Registered User
 
Dovo is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnb View Post
I haven't used dedicated 35mm film scanners. I've used a V700 to scan 35mm negs and transparencies, and have been able to produce from those scans pleasing A4 prints on a quality inkjet (Epson 3880).
How hard is it to produce a quality 35mm scan? It seems like people don't typically like flatbeds for 35mm. I definitely like the flexibility it offers though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I find wet printing much more fun, but the least painful scanner I've ever used is definitely my Pakon 135. It scans an entire roll in one strip, takes about ten minutes and produces great colour without hours of messing about in Photoshop. You need to be able to run Windows XP (a virtual environment is fine) and the software isn't very intuitive. Easy enough when you have scanned a few rolls though.

Highly recommended, as is the Facebook Pakon group who will get you up and running if you want to go that route.
Is the Pakon better than Nikon and Minolta? They seem to be just as old but I don't hear anyone saying theirs has died?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnmcd View Post
I use a very inexpensive 35mm Plustek Optifilm 8100 purchased second hand for only $250 Australian and while I haven't printed anything from it, the sampled down 3600 dpi images for web use are just fine and indistinguishable from my broken Minolta MultiScan pro.

Hope this helps - John
Hi John, If I were buy a new Plustek which one would you recommend? There is now the 8200 se and ai as well as one called the 135 which is newer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #9
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 534
I scan all my film with Plustek 8100 from the bay. Not that expensive and very nice performance.



Only possible drawback from this kind of scanner could be the slow scanning process, but, mostly because I'm very selective at what I scan, I dont find it much of a drag.

Quote:
Hi John, If I were buy a new Plustek which one would you recommend? There is now the 8200 se and ai as well as one called the 135 which is newer.

If you are shooting B/W, go for the 8100, mostly because dust and scratch removal, IMHO, doesn't perform as well on B/W; also, if you like to tweek the photos, 8200 would mostly be on your way. Main difference between both models is that 8200 has image correction build on the scanner and on the 8100 you do it on your PC , using Gimp,Photoshop, etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #10
Dovo
Registered User
 
Dovo is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 18
Is the difference between the Pakon F-135 and the Plus model huge?

It's pretty interesting that you could buy these for $200 a few years ago but supposedly the only repair center in the USA charges $1,789 for a Plus and $837 for a refurbished non-plus.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #11
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,120
If you are trying to reproduce 18-24 MP digital on super fine A3 prints, sure, MF is good for it. Or for blowing it on 24inch monitor for pixel peeping.
I'm not into it. Every time I'm buying MF camera it lasts for few weeks and I'm ditching it. My Leica, FED taken negatives are absolutely good enough for 8x10 and slightly larger lab thermal prints. Main thing is to prepare negatives scans for their printers, if bw is needed. I have bw negatives scans done by cheapest Epson V330 (100$ new), printed on 8x10 in Costco and framed for the wall. Good enough to see them every day
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #12
Dovo
Registered User
 
Dovo is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 18
How is the Pacific Imagine XA compared to the PlusTek and the Pakon? I would buy a Pakon since they are more expensive I am not sure it's worth the risk.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #13
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,370
Just get one of the Minolta film scanners that are dedicated 35mm scanners. I did a test between one of those and a Nikon Cool Scan 4000 ED, and the only real difference was that the Nikon file was bigger (4000 compared to 2850 if I remember correctly). The Nikon did have Digital Ice, but that feature did not work on B&W film so it was a moot point. My printer was capable of 13x19, and that worked fine for the Minolta. Yes, the Nikon resolved more detail, but not enough to really be noticeable on large prints.

Scanners will accentuate film grain on B&W too Everything gets blown up during the scanning process. If I had known how much more fun working in a darkroom was compared to scanning film, I would have never gone that route.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #14
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dovo View Post
Is the difference between the Pakon F-135 and the Plus model huge?

It's pretty interesting that you could buy these for $200 a few years ago but supposedly the only repair center in the USA charges $1,789 for a Plus and $837 for a refurbished non-plus.
The Pakon will be much faster than the Nikon or Minolta, but I believe (haven't owned either) they can squeeze a little more detail out. The Pakon isn't great for slide film if that's your thing, but it excels at colour negative film and works fine for B&W. If you have a 36 frame roll of film, you're likely to need five hours+ to scan it with a non Pakon scanner. In that time I bet I could scan twelve rolls and have the images sorted and filed in Lightroom!

I used to own a plus model and now own a non plus. You can force the non plus to scan at the same resolution as the plus using the tlxclient software so there's no practical difference. The excellent, automatic colour balance magic is the same from both scanners. I wouldn't buy a plus again, but I'd buy another non-plus Pakon tomorrow if mine died.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #15
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
If I had known how much more fun working in a darkroom was compared to scanning film, I would have never gone that route.
Agreed. I wouldn't bother scanning anything except for sharing with family overseas and the odd forum post.

Scanning is tedium in the extreme. When I see those threads where someone asks which scanner to buy because they have two thousand old slides to scan, I feel like weeping for them!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #16
Scapevision
90% Film
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 315
Sounds like you already have a Digital camera, why not buy a copy stand and use the camera to "scan" your film. Most people swear by it. I personally don't give much crap and use a V700 for all.
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #17
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,917
Just the other day I saw this in a Facebook group I administer:



Nikon D3300 with 40mm 2.8 Macro, spirit bubble and cable release, on a regular tripod (vertical rod inverted) over a wooden cake box with a bathroom LED light and some opaline glass over it for a diffuser. Wooden frame painted flat black to hold the negative. Normally used in the dark to eliminate glare etc.

The poster shot Rolleiflex negatives with it and had no issue printing them in 30x30cm IIRC.

For 35mm negatives this might not be suitable, but for MF it worked like a charm. I saw a digital file from it and that sure looked better than many a 'regular' scan that gets shown in that group.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2017-01-06 at 12.41.05.jpg (23.4 KB, 235 views)
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #18
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
I scan all my film with Plustek 8100 from the bay. Not that expensive and very nice performance.

Only possible drawback from this kind of scanner could be the slow scanning process, but, mostly because I'm very selective at what I scan, I dont find it much of a drag.

If you are shooting B/W, go for the 8100, mostly because dust and scratch removal, IMHO, doesn't perform as well on B/W; also, if you like to tweek the photos, 8200 would mostly be on your way. Main difference between both models is that 8200 has image correction build on the scanner and on the 8100 you do it on your PC , using Gimp,Photoshop, etc.
Dovo, just what he said - Cheers John
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Crown Graphic 4x5

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #19
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dovo View Post
I would like to start shooting film again and was hoping to go 35mm but it seems like the cheap sub $1k scanners are not well liked for 35mm

I know scanning film is not fun but what would be the least painful way to do it?

Is a flatbed scanner like a Epson V850 best or are the 35mm dedicated scanners like the Plustek 8200 ai or the new 135 better?

I don't want to have to fiddle around much to get the images digitized. I also don't want to go the route of some 10 year old unsupported scanner.

The Nikon Coolscan V ED is generally available used in excellent condition for around $500-$600 with the SA-21 film strip negative carrier. Nikon's software for it is way out of date and doesn't run on the lastest versions of macOS either, but VueScan drives this scanner perfectly and, imo, produces better quality scans more easily than any other scanning option. The SA-21 film strip carrier permits automated batch scanning of up to six frame strips. While not particularly quick, the Coolscan V ED produces the best and most consistent quality scans in your price range.

Although old and no longer produced, my Nikon Coolscan V ED outperforms several new flatbed scanners and film scanners as well, including the Epson V700, per the last set of tests I did.

For convenience' sake, I often scan film using a Leica SL and the BEOON copy stand (35mm or 6x6cm format) or by using the SL with a Spiratone Vario-Dupliscope (35mm only). These are quicker to set up and use but take a bit more insight when processing since you must do both inversion and gamma correction (and compensate for color film's orange mask) when shooting negative films. Capture quality is less consistent as well since you must properly focus each exposure individually to get the best results. On balance, if I have a half dozen random film images or less to scan, I use this setup. For any more than that, the Nikon Coolscan V ED comes out of the cabinet.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #20
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dovo View Post
Is a flatbed scanner like a Epson V850 best or are the 35mm dedicated scanners like the Plustek 8200 ai or the new 135 better?
The Epson V850 is better for me because I need to scan 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, 4x5 inch, and 8x10 inch film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #21
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
The Pakon will be much faster than the Nikon or Minolta, but I believe (haven't owned either) they can squeeze a little more detail out. The Pakon isn't great for slide film if that's your thing, but it excels at colour negative film and works fine for B&W. If you have a 36 frame roll of film, you're likely to need five hours+ to scan it with a non Pakon scanner. In that time I bet I could scan twelve rolls and have the images sorted and filed in Lightroom!
I would disagree with 5+ hours to scan 36 shots, at least not with the Plustek 8100.
  • 15 seconds to load strip of 6 into the holder and load
  • 10 seconds for a preview which is done only once, using that for all the negs (in Vuescan)
  • 40 seconds for 3600 dpi scan which loads automatically into PS
  • 2 seconds to push the holder to the next frame & repeat.
The actual scanning takes 36 x 52 sec. or let's round it up to 36 minutes total. As with any scanning process, the time you take in PS is up to you. For me a quick invert (I scan negs as slides), crop to inside frame edge if required, then levels and resize to around 1000 pixels long and they're ready for sharing or as proofs for wet printing. If I'm in the zone, this process adds another 60 sec per frame.

I actually have the whole process running on my other monitor while I surf the net or read some RFF posts.

Cheers - John
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Crown Graphic 4x5

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #22
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,425
If you already have a decent digital camera use that to 'scan' your images. No need to mess w more hardware and possibly flaky software. You can see results online better than that from dedicated amateur film scanners. And much quicker to use.

There is something to be said about using a decent lab and getting your film and scans back together. For me it is a much more efficient use of my time but I get wanting to do it yourself.

This is one of those things where maybe the first question you should ask is how much are you going to actually shoot in a month? It really needs to be a substantial amount for a scanner purchase to make financial sense. Financial, not creative!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2017   #23
JChrome
Street Worker
 
JChrome's Avatar
 
JChrome is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
If you have a 36 frame roll of film, you're likely to need five hours+ to scan it with a non Pakon scanner. In that time I bet I could scan twelve rolls and have the images sorted and filed in Lightroom!

Yea I'm also going to cast some skepticism on this figure. I can load 4 strips of 6 frames into my v700 and it will automatically scan them all in about 30 minutes or less. I've migrated to the flatbeds with larger real estate for this reason.

Of course tweaking each would take time and my own philosophy of "make crappy scans until you need something better" makes it quicker.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
www.stillthrill.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #24
WJJ3
Registered User
 
WJJ3's Avatar
 
WJJ3 is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Kagoshima City
Posts: 448
another vote for using a DSLR and macro lens to scan film. When set up correctly its relatively painless and works great for B&W negs or color positives.

For scanning 35mm color negative there is only one good option: Pakon
__________________
Happy Shooting!
~Will

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #25
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 616
Back when I worked in the Camera Center LLC, we had a customer come in with roughly 700 slides that he wanted to digitize. When we were trying to figure out the best way to get the cost down per slide as much as possible we found that using a DSLR on a copy stand was the best route.

The stand already had a slide holder with an under light. So all we had to do was pre-focus on one, set everything manually, and just start stacking them with a remote shutter foot-cable. So that I would just slip the slide in, pop off the shutter, put the next slide in, over and over.

Negatives would course taken longer using that method since they're not mounted.

The only scanner I bother with at home is my old Canoscan FS4000, which to my knowledge only VueScan works with with today's operating systems. It can be a bit slower to do each frame at 4,000 DPI, since it's 6 frames per loading. But not nearly as slow as some of the epson software on the flatbed scanner on OSX at school.

I wish I had a dedicated MF Scanner though. But I guess a camera to shoot a negative and convert can work as long as you're selective about what you want to shoot and long as you have a very well diffused light table.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #26
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by JChrome View Post
Yea I'm also going to cast some skepticism on this figure. I can load 4 strips of 6 frames into my v700 and it will automatically scan them all in about 30 minutes or less. I've migrated to the flatbeds with larger real estate for this reason.

Of course tweaking each would take time and my own philosophy of "make crappy scans until you need something better" makes it quicker.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be clear: I was talking about cleaning the film, loading it into the scanner, scanning, removing the strips, processing the files in Photoshop, ColorPerfect etc. to balance the colour, dust spotting the files and finally importing them to Lightroom.

In my experience with a flatbed that can take three to five hours with a 36 exposure roll of film, depending on how fussy you are about your colour balance. About 6 to 10 minutes per frame.

Realistically, I can do that same roll in 30 to 45 minutes with the Pakon because the scanning is so quick and the colour rarely needs tweaking.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #27
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
To be clear: I was talking about cleaning the film, loading it into the scanner, scanning, removing the strips, processing the files in Photoshop, ColorPerfect etc. to balance the colour, dust spotting the files and finally importing them to Lightroom.

In my experience with a flatbed that can take three to five hours with a 36 exposure roll of film, depending on how fussy you are about your colour balance. About 6 to 10 minutes per frame.

Realistically, I can do that same roll in 30 to 45 minutes with the Pakon because the scanning is so quick and the colour rarely needs tweaking.
Probably, getting pedantic now, but I think to be fair...

My times are for B/W, so no colour 'tweaking'. I don't know how accurate the 8100 is for (or the Vuescan for that matter)). That said I rarely need any dust treatment other than a quick blow with a squeeze blower prior to loading. That will depend on how each persons ability to produce clean negs (another rabbit hole to descend into). Therefore for me at least, the quick cloning of one or two specks is no more than a couple of seconds.

To include post processing time, regardless of which scanning method, is problematic as each person will vary greatly in this area and therefore should be applied equally across all comparisons.

Link some scanned images with some rough times and the OP can decide what suits their workflow.
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Crown Graphic 4x5

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #28
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnmcd View Post
Probably, getting pedantic now, but I think to be fair...

My times are for B/W, so no colour 'tweaking'. I don't know how accurate the 8100 is for (or the Vuescan for that matter)). That said I rarely need any dust treatment other than a quick blow with a squeeze blower prior to loading. That will depend on how each persons ability to produce clean negs (another rabbit hole to descend into). Therefore for me at least, the quick cloning of one or two specks is no more than a couple of seconds.

To include post processing time, regardless of which scanning method, is problematic as each person will vary greatly in this area and therefore should be applied equally across all comparisons.

Link some scanned images with some rough times and the OP can decide what suits their workflow.
The Pakon is basically a drug store scanner, so it's forte is C41. In my experience it's colour negative film that's the real pain with flatbeds due to the colour balancing and orange mask removal. Here are a few Pakon scans. They were shot a while ago as I don't use much 35mm, but I've tried to remember what I did to the file post-scan.

Fuji Eterna 250D movie stock. I tweaked the colours in Lightroom to remove a cyan cast as it was processed in C41. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes work? And I applied the same correction to the full roll, so that was 38 frames done.



Another from the same roll.



Kodak 250D shot straight from the Pakon + a small contrast boost in Lightroom.



Straight from the Pakon.

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #29
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
The Pakon is basically a drug store scanner, so it's forte is C41. In my experience it's colour negative film that's the real pain with flatbeds due to the colour balancing and orange mask removal. Here are a few Pakon scans. They were shot a while ago as I don't use much 35mm, but I've tried to remember what I did to the file post-scan.

Fuji Eterna 250D movie stock. I tweaked the colours in Lightroom to remove a cyan cast as it was processed in C41. Maybe 2 or 3 minutes work? And I applied the same correction to the full roll, so that was 38 frames done.
Nice scans. Looks great for C-41.

Cheers - John
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Crown Graphic 4x5

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #30
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,104
I've owned all the Coolscans over about a 20 year period, two Minolta Dimage, a Noritsu lab scanner, various flat beds, a BEOON digitizing setup using a Sony A7-II, and a Pakon.

Hands down the winner for newly shot negs is Pakon. It has Kodak color smarts that no other scanner can match. It does use an obsolete OS but it's very cheap to set up a dedicated PC or it can be operated using a virtual PC.

5 minutes to scan a 36 roll and a couple of minutes for batch adjustments is all that is necessary for the majority of rolls.

It can handle Xpan negs and other situations with more work.

B &W is easier with any solution. Camera digitizing solutions are the most difficult and time consuming for color balance. It's difficult to develop a consistent workflow and is time consuming on each individual neg.

I use a Minolta for legacy slides, I don't shoot transparencies any longer.

Flatbeds I found tedious and of insufficient res for 35mm.

If there were no Pakon option I'd use a Minolta, Nikon, or Plustek or just have a pro lab do the work.

Hope this helps.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #31
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 29
Posts: 882
Soon there will be a new sheriff in town!

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/s...d.php?t=151076
__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #32
nbagno
Registered User
 
nbagno is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
I currently use a variety of scanners depending on the film format. For 35mm, nothing beats the Pakon 135 (I have the plus) for speed and convenience IMO. Colors are great and uses digital ice. If I need to scan a frame larger because I found a super awesome image that must be printed large I can use one of my other scanners. (Haven't yet).

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #33
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 788
I had a Pakon for 5 years. It was awesome. The colors are great, the b/w files are killer, the speed was nice and it was relatively easy to use. That scanner single handedly saved shooting film for me. I sold it a few weeks ago. I started looking into other scanners because I didn't need full rolls of film scanned. I get a lot of keepers but most of the time I don't do much with them all so I wanted to be more selective and print more. I settled on the Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA and it's been awesome. The level of detail is so much higher than anything I got from the Pakon. The Pakon is great and I still recommend it to people if you have tons of rolls you need to digitize but if you want a quality, fine art scan the new dedicated 35mm scanners are the way to go. This weird fascination people have with "but can it scan full rolls" needs to stop. Using VueScan isn't that bad either. The workflow in general is not too bad. Pull out a tablet or look at your negs up to some light, pick the ones you wanna do, preview them and then scan them. It's not hard. Oh, and if you REALLY want to have full rolls then the XA can do that too.

F*** flat bed scanning 35mm. That's the worst. I imagine that hell for me is Satan forcing me to color correct and scan all of his 35mm negs with a V600 using Silverfast.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #34
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 461
Another vote here from the Pacific Image XA. It's been a game changer for my 35mm. It has AUTOFOCUS GLORY BE
Hallelujah!
and when using vuescan you can take advantage of the extensive multi-exposure and multisampling tools. It's not a fast scanner, but I keep trying to remind people...

The darkroom was not fast either!

Sometimes you just gotta look at your negs on a light table and cull a bit. The fine-art quality scans are worth it. I have scanned with the Coolscan V and 9000, and I'm getting comparable results from the XA. The other caveat of course is that scanning is not a user-friendly affair in general. I think the mixed reviews people frequently give scanners often derive from that fact. But I can safely say the XA (and I also own the fabulous PF120 for medium format) are not at all a limiting factor in my work currently.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #35
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
This weird fascination people have with "but can it scan full rolls" needs to stop.
"This weird fascination" is what keeps me shooting 35mm...

i set up one of my previous Nikons to scan an entire roll (with the published hack) and although it worked, it look far longer and STILL required lots of color tweaking (per image.)

The Pakon is not just for scanning entire rolls, it's for

(a) superior color right out of the scanner
(b) batch adjustments (usually for brightness, contrast)

If you only need to scan an image here and there, there are other options, but if you shoot an entire roll (most people do) and want to actually SEE the entire roll without a lot of time and effort without having to imagine what a neg will look like as a positive, nothing beats the Pakon. In the amount of time it takes to scan the entire roll, one could instead scan a single frame on another scanner, only to realize the neg wasn't as it was first imagined; has happened to me many times!

Resolution isn't everything either. I bought a Noritsu lab scanner and did a side-by-side with the Pakon (6000x4000 vs 3000x2000) and preferred the Pakon for overall quality and color. If I were to ever need higher resolution (to print wall-size) then I'd send out for a drum scan. But I've never needed anything that large.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #36
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
"This weird fascination" is what keeps me shooting 35mm...

i set up one of my previous Nikons to scan an entire roll (with the published hack) and although it worked, it look far longer and STILL required lots of color tweaking (per image.)

The Pakon is not just for scanning entire rolls, it's for

(a) superior color right out of the scanner
(b) batch adjustments (usually for brightness, contrast)

If you only need to scan an image here and there, there are other options, but if you shoot an entire roll (most people do) and want to actually SEE the entire roll without a lot of time and effort, nothing beats the Pakon.

Resolution isn't everything either. I bought a Noritsu lab scanner and did a side-by-side with the Pakon (6000x4000 vs 3000x2000) and preferred the Pakon for overall quality and color. If I were to ever need higher resolution (to print wall-size) then I'd send out for a drum scan. But I've never needed anything that large.
When I look at Pakon, Noritsu, Frontier scans of 35mm now, I just see the surface noise that covers up all the grain. You get jaggy edges from the baked in sharpening, and it throws out detail in the highlights and shadows. Sure, maybe these lab scanners get reasonably close to decent color faster than a desktop unit, but for me the difference is night and day. I haven't had an issue color balancing my scans personally.

These are all from the Primefilm XA, set to batch scan full rolls (which I no longer do because I agree with Brennan, full roll scanning is workflow mistake when compared to just culling and doing a more hands-on scan of single images), with multi exposure. http://sperryphoto.com/an-american-mill The color was very close SooS, I did only basic edits in LR to get these right.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #37
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,104
Over sharpening can happen with any scanner. Change the settings if you're getting those results.

Full-roll scanning is exactly what the Pakon is designed to do, as a minilab scanner; not so with other scanners. It's a workflow FEATURE, not a mistake.

There are lots of scanners that can provide excellent results, no doubt. It's just a matter of how much time and effort is required of the operator.

Are there scanners that can provide superior results to the Pakon? Of course. Any scanner + time + skill + the right software can do that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #38
nbagno
Registered User
 
nbagno is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
Pakon is also awesome as a proofing scanner so you can really check out images in detail for higher resolution scanning.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #39
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 788
So what you're saying is that you MUST have entire 35mm rolls scanned? It's too difficult to preview 2-3 images from a set and pick one?
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #40
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,104
Nope. Scan strips if you want. If you have more than one strip, it will prompt you to insert the next one.

But why do this with a newly developed roll? That's what the topic is about, going back to shooting 35mm. Best not to cut such a roll into strips if you have a Pakon. If it's another scanner, yes, the roll will need to be cut unless it's one of the Nikons that can handle an entire roll (but it will take 90 minutes to finish...)

I only scan strips of rolls that were developed and cut in previous years; newly shot rolls are left as single strips.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.