Reading mode: Light Dark

Old scanners / new cameras

Go to last post
F8AD said:
smithim said:
No, because :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit...chnology uses a,based on this data afterwards.
Click to expand...
Thanks !
I've read that but it seems a partial restorative method if it can only be used on B&W. Is it just some color negative films it doesn't work on, or many? I'm curious if artifacts can't be fixed in Adobe's PhotoShop after negatives are inverted.
Click to expand...
You can’t use ICE on Conventional B&W, but you can on chromogenic B&W. You can use it on colour negatives and slides (possibly not Kodachrome - depends on the scanner).



You can fix it in PhotoShop, but you have to spot each image by eye, which can take 10 minutes or more (depending on how bad the slide or neg is).

You could use compressed air to blow the negative clean or a static brush beforehand too which would reduce the dust
 
F8AD said:
smithim said:
No, because :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit...chnology uses a,based on this data afterwards.
Click to expand...
Thanks !
I've read that but it seems a partial restorative method if it can only be used on B&W. Is it just some color negative films it doesn't work on, or many? I'm curious if artifacts can't be fixed in Adobe's PhotoShop after negatives are inverted.
Click to expand...
ICE works fine on colour slides and negatives - it's some B&W film and Kodachrome that can have problems.

One can PP films using software like PS, but if the slide/neg is dusty or in poor condition it's tedious and can take ages per slide, which is why a film scanner can work out quicker overall - it cleans up the image accurately and automatically.
 
F8AD said:
Thank you , Overrank. I appreciate your reply.
Click to expand...
It’s probably worth adding that I’ve found the value of ICE to be less with the smaller negative sizes. With old 110 film you can end up with “worms” as it tries to get rid of long scratches - less so with new 110 film which can be in better condition.
 
aks100 said:
I have:
  • Canon 8000F flatbed - poor resolution for 35mm negatives, very slow
  • Plustek 8200i - good results, but slow to scan ~3-4 mins
  • Nikon Z6 + 60mm macro + ES2 - good results, 'fast scan' ~seconds
I consider setup time to be similar across all methods - place neg in holder, blow dust off, insert into scanning device. If I knew what I have now experienced, I'd gone direct to DSLR. Yes the post processing is longer, this is where I'd prefer to spend my time as all the scans I did needed post processing anyway.

I did notice that Plustek released 8300i SE with claimed 38% faster scanning speed with a new algorithm and IC chip.
Click to expand...
When I’ve used scanners which can automatically scan multiple frames I find the process almost the opposite to DSLR scanning, I preview and then *pre-process* each image (frame, adjust light, dark and mid point if necessary) to get it just right, then click the button and walk away.



It’s interesting that Plustek have produced a new scanner which is supposedly faster, although looking back I think I’d have preferred a motor drive when I was doing bulk scanning
 
I didn't read all the many posts here but here are my 50 cents: I use a Braun FS 120 135/120 film scanner, which is basically a rebranded Reflecta MF5000 scanner. With such an old scanner, the whole process is slow, but very rewarding if you want quality and do not need to scan thousands of images. An important part of this process is the SilverFast software package, a powerful tool with a ton of film profiles as available presets. You can also change freely a lot of scanning parameters, so you have a sort of Photoshop for film scanning.

I highly recommend SilverFast, but - as far as I know - they don't offer it as a plug-in software for those who use a digital camera to scan films. So, as of today, if you want to use Silverfast, Epson's V850 flatbed scanner would be the most affordable choice. I have no experience with that scanner, but reviews are mostly quite positive.

For the future, I hope that software options for those using cameras for scanning are getting better, because I guess that's the future for the small community of film enthusiasts like us. The film scanner market shrinks rapidly, only cheap and minor quality and extremely expensive high quality scanners are currently left over.

--
Picturenaut
 
Last edited:
Picturenaut said:
I didn't read all the many posts here but here are my 50 cents: I use a Braun FS 120 135/120 film scanner, which is basically a rebranded Reflecta MF5000 scanner. With such an old scanner, the whole process is slow, but very rewarding if you want quality and do not need to scan thousands of images. An important part of this process is the SilverFast software package, a powerful tool with a ton of film profiles as available presets. You can also change freely a lot of scanning parameters, so you have a sort of Photoshop for film scanning.

I highly recommend SilverFast, but - as far as I know - they don't offer it as a plug-in software for those who use a digital camera to scan films. So, as of today, if you want to use Silverfast, Epson's V850 flatbed scanner would be the most affordable choice. I have no experience with that scanner, but reviews are mostly quite positive.
Click to expand...
Silverfast can read in raw files but as far as I know it’s only raw files that SF has created. Plus that option is I think only acailable as part of the archive suite. VueScan can read (some) camera raw files in.
Picturenaut said:
For the future, I hope that software options for those using cameras for scanning are getting better, because I guess that's the future for the small community of film enthusiasts like us. The film scanner market shrinks rapidly, only cheap and minor quality and extremely expensive high quality scanners are currently left over.
Click to expand...
Conversely, I actually think that there have been a number of affordable, quality (or at least comparable to using a digital camera) film scanners released in the last few years (Plustek 8300i, 135i, Reflecta RPS 10M etc) so the film scanner market is expanding along with most things related to film photography, “A rising tide lifts all boats” as it were
 
Last edited:
Picturenaut said:
"For the future, I hope that software options for those using cameras for scanning are getting better, because I guess that's the future for the small community of film enthusiasts like us. The film scanner market shrinks rapidly, only cheap and minor quality and extremely expensive high quality scanners are currently left over."


Yep.
That's the conundrum, basically why I will go digital camera copying. In a perfect world, film scanner software would work as a stand alone. I already have two old film cameras and one donor of each for parts inevitably. The thought of an old flatbed scanner needing parts ( or having yet another donor machine ) or software that may not work with newer OS isn't encouraging. One of the software brands for scanners has to be repurchased/re-licensed if you change devices I believe.

So far I have a Durst enlarger column that's really solid that will hold a ballhead, a CR rated 95 backlight for negatives and a 35mm fil holder. My digital Nikons will get a macro lens attached and I'll see what I can do with Negative Labs software and Lightroom.

I haven't developed any film in 50 plus years - no kidding. I'm hopeful.
Click to expand...
 
F8AD said:
Picturenaut said:
"For the future, I hope that software options for those using cameras for scanning are getting better, because I guess that's the future for the small community of film enthusiasts like us. The film scanner market shrinks rapidly, only cheap and minor quality and extremely expensive high quality scanners are currently left over."
Click to expand...
Yep.
That's the conundrum, basically why I will go digital camera copying. In a perfect world, film scanner software would work as a stand alone.
Click to expand...
To some extent the scanner software is tailored to the scanner - for example most scanners use a “calibrated” / standardised white light source, whereas people using a digital camera use a mixture - natural light, electronic flash, CRI 95+ LEDs, non- CRI 95+ LEDs etc etc. There are already a large number of software packages to invert colour negatives separate from scanner software, some of which are free.
F8AD said:
I already have two old film cameras and one donor of each for parts inevitably. The thought of an old flatbed scanner needing parts ( or having yet another donor machine ) or software that may not work with newer OS isn't encouraging. One of the software brands for scanners has to be repurchased/re-licensed if you change devices I believe.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean SilverFast ? The current SilverFast (v9) can be moved to a new scanner (a maximum of two times). Both VueScan and SilverFast work with Windows 10, VueScan can be used on multiple scanners with no separate licencing. New scanners, both film and flatbed, are available
F8AD said:
So far I have a Durst enlarger column that's really solid that will hold a ballhead, a CR rated 95 backlight for negatives and a 35mm fil holder. My digital Nikons will get a macro lens attached and I'll see what I can do with Negative Labs software and Lightroom.
I haven't developed any film in 50 plus years - no kidding. I'm hopeful.
Click to expand...
 
Overrank said:
Silverfast can read in raw files but as far as I know it’s only raw files that SF has created. Plus that option is I think only acailable as part of the archive suite. VueScan can read (some) camera raw files in.
Click to expand...
Okay, never tried that. One of the strengths of SilverFast is that it comes with the scanner profile in a package. Not sure if they offer RAW profiles that are adapted to the particular camera used, this would be an attractive solution.
Overrank said:
Overrank said:
For the future, I hope that software options for those using cameras for scanning are getting better, because I guess that's the future for the small community of film enthusiasts like us. The film scanner market shrinks rapidly, only cheap and minor quality and extremely expensive high quality scanners are currently left over.
Click to expand...
Conversely, I actually think that there have been a number of affordable, quality (or at least comparable to using a digital camera) film scanners released in the last few years (Plustek 8300i, 135i, Reflecta RPS 10M etc) so the film scanner market is expanding along with most things related to film photography, “A rising tide lifts all boats” as it were
Click to expand...
Yes, but 135 film only! For those shooting frequently 120 film it looks worse - and the real film adventure starts with bigger than 135mm formats IMO. I recently had trouble with my 135/120 film scanner from Reflecta/Braun and did a thorough research, I also contacted film scanner experts and learned that this market really dries out, if you prefer the medium price range (i.e. better than flat-bed scanners but still much more affordable 10 k$ scanners from Nikon or Hasselblad etc.). Fortunately, Reflecta/Braun still repairs their old scanners, so I got mine fixed.

--
Picturenaut
 
Last edited:
I am very happy with my actual scanner a Reflecta x33 Scan it's not expensive and the scanned result is good for the review of old negative or transparencies. I can easily file what I want to save and with photoshop I can easily improve the quality of the old pictures!



c4dad64ee9a64016af5c5483e8de018c.jpg

Love this one!
 
Picturenaut said:
Overrank said:
Silverfast can read in raw files but as far as I know it’s only raw files that SF has created. Plus that option is I think only acailable as part of the archive suite. VueScan can read (some) camera raw files in.
Click to expand...
Okay, never tried that. One of the strengths of SilverFast is that it comes with the scanner profile in a package. Not sure if they offer RAW profiles that are adapted to the particular camera used, this would be an attractive solution.
Click to expand...
I do prefer the film profiles in SilverFast over VueScan. SilverFast is as or more expensive than other standalone negative inverters. If you want one with lots of film profiles then ColorPerfect is very good.
Picturenaut said:
Picturenaut said:
Picturenaut said:
For the future, I hope that software options for those using cameras for scanning are getting better, because I guess that's the future for the small community of film enthusiasts like us. The film scanner market shrinks rapidly, only cheap and minor quality and extremely expensive high quality scanners are currently left over.
Click to expand...
Conversely, I actually think that there have been a number of affordable, quality (or at least comparable to using a digital camera) film scanners released in the last few years (Plustek 8300i, 135i, Reflecta RPS 10M etc) so the film scanner market is expanding along with most things related to film photography, “A rising tide lifts all boats” as it were
Click to expand...
Yes, but 135 film only! For those shooting frequently 120 film it looks worse - and the real film adventure starts with bigger than 135mm formats IMO. I recently had trouble with my 135/120 film scanner from Reflecta/Braun and did a thorough research, I also contacted film scanner experts and learned that this market really dries out, if you prefer the medium price range (i.e. better than flat-bed scanners but still much more affordable 10 k$ scanners from Nikon or Hasselblad etc.). Fortunately, Reflecta/Braun still repairs their old scanners, so I got mine fixed.
Click to expand...
135 outsells medium format by large multiple so that’s obviously the area that scanner manufacturers will go for first (plus the old consumer market was almost entirely 135) However, I’ve seen rumors ( https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...cated-medium-format-scanner-this-year.189023/ ) that Pacific Image / Reflecta are replacing their 120 scanner. A serviced Nikon Coolscan 9000 is around £3k in the UK (vs £2k for the Plustek 120 scanner)
 
Overrank said:
When I’ve used scanners which can automatically scan multiple frames I find the process almost the opposite to DSLR scanning, I preview and then *pre-process* each image (frame, adjust light, dark and mid point if necessary) to get it just right, then click the button and walk away.
Click to expand...
Yes that could be a time saver, I've never had a decent quality batch scanner.
 
F8AD said:
F8AD said:
The thought of an old flatbed scanner needing parts ( or having yet another donor machine ) or software that may not work with newer OS isn't encouraging. One of the software brands for scanners has to be repurchased/re-licensed if you change devices I believe.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The use of old scanners is possible, but may require additional purchases such as old, but still working computers to run them. Here is a very good video about that topic from "analog insights", one of my favorite source about film photography:

F8AD said:
F8AD said:
I haven't developed any film in 50 plus years - no kidding. I'm hopeful.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I had a pause of about 30 years in film developing, and before that, I only developed B&W films by myself. But that's no conundrum, even C-41 films work well, if you control the process thoroughly (process temperature control is crucial). You have to accept accidents, of course, but some accidents may even deliver very interesting, beautiful results.

When I realized that partly a return to shooting film (I shoot digital, too) gets quite important and rewarding for me, I invested in a "Filmomat", and I really love this little lab machine built by a young German enthusiast:

Filmomat

The automatic film processor for 35mm, 120, 4x5", 5x7", Super-8 and 16mm.
www.filmomat.eu www.filmomat.eu
 
Bob Janes said:
Overrank said:
I see quite a few post which say things like “there used to be good scanners like the Super CoolScan 5000 ED or the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II but if I was scanning my negatives now I’d use a digital camera and a macro lens” (tbh these are less in the Film Forum, more elsewhere on DPR). So a quick question - if there were new scanners that were *the same* as the Coolscan or DiMAGE, but with warranty, support etc, would you choose them over using a digital camera ?
Click to expand...
The currently available Reflecta and Plustek scanners are quite good and will certainly get most of what is possible from a 35mm negative. The old AF scanners are good, but are now nearly 20 years old.
Click to expand...
The Reflecta RPS 10M / Pacific Image PrimeFilm XAs gets quite a few (positive) comparisons with the various CoolScans (e.g. https://jursa-domo.medium.com/reflecta-rps-10m-vs-nikon-coolscan-5000ed-eb585edaa9b4 ) although in the UK it’s currently more expensive than the CoolScan V and almost the same as the CoolScan 5000.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Overrank
  • Poll Poll
What would you pay for a new film scanner
2 3
Replies
46
Views
160
Overrank
Overrank
Overrank
RGB light for film scanning
Replies
17
Views
737
Bob
B
O
  • Question Question
Film scanner advice (Europe)
Replies
2
Views
399
Overrank
Overrank
Overrank
  • Poll Poll
Lab scan, scanner or camera
2
Replies
21
Views
22
aks100
A
M
Old Prints: Scanner vs Camera?
Replies
14
Views
1K
D Cox
D

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top