But move up to roll film, or 5×4 with the 9900F, and for some inexplicable reason they transform themselves into superb performers for a flatbed. The issue with them both is that neither excels with 35mm format scans, where no matter what I try, the scans always seem to come out soft even though detail can still be seen. But I am going to come to the defence of Canon flatbed scanners, as I use two: the Mk 1 (original version) of the 9000F and an older, but IMO, a far better 9900F. The Canon 9000F Mk II scan is poor in comparison. as regards contrast, the lab scan seems to exhibit marginally less than the Plustek in the Christmas Market scene and now I find myself preferring the lab scan! This just goes to show how difficult it is doing this sort of comparison. And I feel that the lab’s higher contrast also works better for the street scene at the base of the wheel. Nothing actually wrong with the Plustek result, just that for the subject matter, I like the higher contrast in the lab scan. Well, no, not exactly, as I now prefer the higher contrast for the cafe shot. (You can see where this is going, can’t you?) There is clearly more contrast in the lab scan of the wheel, hence the grain is more noticeable, but I find the Plustek far preferable here in its overall imaging result. The Silverfast version just appears flat and dull and without the contrast of the other two, and by the time you get to this scan, have you noticed a horizontal scratch can now be seen in the sky. The lab scan of the barn is has more vibrancy than the Plustek, but has produced magenta clouds, where the Plustek reveals them to be blue and does look more natural. The lab seems to have slightly too much green, IMO, and the Silverfast is, well, just plain dull and uninspiring and with a strong magenta cast. I find the images of the graffiti fence very revealing and to my eyes, the plain Plustek is preferred. #SILVERFAST PLUSTEK 8200I NOT FOUND PC#We need to take into account that we all don’t necessarily see colour or hue in image the same, and our pc monitors definitely won’t be set up identically, so keep this in mind reading my comments if you find they don’t accord with your perceptions this is something I’d expect. #SILVERFAST PLUSTEK 8200I NOT FOUND SERIES#I tried as best as I could.įrank, an interesting series of comparisons, especially as you have compared three scanners. Of course, it’s hard to get exactly matching colours. Here are both versions, let’s check them out. And these examples are processed quite quickly as I wanted to submit this comparison and get your feedback.įirst, the cover photo for my former post, ‘DO’. Mind you, the Opticfilm scans have NOT been sharpened. Also I scanned using Vuescan which I think is quite old fashioned, but excellent! I’ll try Silverfast (once again) but I detested it’s cumbersome interface the last times I used it and I don’t think this will change. I scanned at a resolution f 3600dpi on the Plustek – I compared with the maximum resolution of 7200 and as there seems to be a very slight advantage, the file sizes are HUGE (400Mb for a color scan…). This can weigh in heavily on the result of the comparison. Always keep in mind that a B&W film, developed and scanned by my lab at 3600 x 5400 dpi is 19€ (there are lesser resolutions for a little less money available…), not counting postage to the lab. I scanned some of my negatives that were processed by MeinFilmLab some time ago and here I want to give you my results. Of course I bought it from Amazon as I want to test if this really works for me this time. and what’s more, the 8200 is about 100€ more expensive. In short, I went and ordered (again) a Plustek Opticfilm 8100, not the 8200 because I prefer B&W and the infrared cleaning features don’t work on B&W film…. And it’s true, outsourcing the scanning process is not always entierly in favour of keeping control! But we do it also because we want to keep control over our pictures. Why do we shoot film? Well, we like the cameras, the feel of film, the look of film and the smell of Rodinal in the morning…. And I still think that the time saved by having a lab scan your film is invaluable.īut then along came KJ Vogelius with his wonderfully detailed post about his scanner…. I wrote it because I wholeheartedly believed what I said. Ahem, Ok, I guess I have some ‘splaining to do here. Some time ago I wrote this post for 35mmc, in praise for expensive outsourcing of film development and scanning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |