[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 19 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: 2400_01.jpg (8 KB, 400x193)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
Thinking of getting a plustek scanner to scan negatives. But my family also wants to scan all our photos too. What's a good scanner for this? Doesn't have to have a document feeder since family willing to take shifts scanning the photos, so it can be a bit slower.
>>
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423725-REG/Tamron_AF017C700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html
>>
Bump.
>>
>>3164408
Epson v550 is the standard for diy neg scanning. I own one and love it. You can find them for $150.
>>
>>3165810
A dedicated film scanner is better
>>
File deleted.
>>3165810
this.
You won't regret it.
Best option for the money
>>
>>3165810
>>3165812
this. alternatively, get the V500, i scan from half format to large format no problem with it. be sure to use silverfast, because vuescan cucks you hard.
>>
>>3165813
>format
frame yeah.
>>
>>3165811
any suggestions?

>>3165813
They're the same price in Aus atm.I'm guessing the 550 is better than the 500?
>>
>>3165811
Cool, it only costs several hundred dollars more, can't be used to scan prints like op asked, and offers only marginal quality improvement.

The 550 was tested against drum scans and the improvement wasn't noticeable until blowing up a 4x5 to some absurd dimensions that you would only print for fuckhuge mural shit.

Don't steer people to waste hundreds/thousands of dollars on placebo or pre digital ad agency equipment when they're looking for an economical solution to share with their family. Some people are autistic enough to fall for that meme, like you.
>>
File: london gin circus.jpg (851 KB, 3054x2009)
851 KB
851 KB JPG
>>3165846
scan of faded kodak slide film from 1961 with v550

>contrast and curves applied.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerMatt Lamb
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: london gin circus2.jpg (218 KB, 1080x1538)
218 KB
218 KB JPG
>>3165846
still playing with how to restore color on these

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerMatt Lamb
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3165846
>>3165847
That's pretty good tb.h. But how about color accuracy? This is where a more refined dedicated scanner has the advantage
>>
>>3165918
Unless you're shooting paintings (which you should not do with film in AD 2017), it's good enough. Protip: dedicated scanners use the exact same type of backlight and sensors.
>>
>>3166429
Read these and weep
>>3163705
>>3163706
>>
>>3165810
>Epson v550
>standard

Resolution worse than if I would scan it with my yeast infected hemroidal asshole.
The v600 is already the lowest ranked besides the 9000F
>>
File: IMG_1259.jpg (51 KB, 500x713)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>3166438
>German
Found the autistic retard who masturbates over minutiae that even professional photographers don't consider important.

Shouldn't you be playing forklift simulator after a long day at the warehouse, Hans?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
CommentScreenshot
Image Width500
Image Height713
>>
>>3166438
>trying to convince /p/ readers to spend $1,000 instead of $150 on a scanner
>unnoticeable increase in quality
The eternal kraut strikes again

BUT MEIN DXO SCORES
>>
>>3165810
I use the V550 and it's great, your best option if you want to scan prints as well.
>>
>>3166437
Now consider the fact that the Pakon costs 10x the price of the Epson.
>>
>>3166525
kekd
>>
>>3165811
Great advice, too bad that specifically ignores what OP said.
>>
>>3166526
>>3166525

I'm already playing forklift simulator all day and excellent at it.

The V550 is utter shit, the next tier up (Plustek & Reflecta) delivers double the resolution for sub 300 prices.
>>
>>3166704
>The V550 is utter shit
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=epson%20v550

The only utter shit here is what you have for brains. OP should look through the Flickr before spending multiple times as much money for results that aren't fucking apparent without magnifying individual pixels several times over.

Go back to digital photography you fucking autistic psychopath. Film isn't for pixel peeping homosexuals.
>>
It seems like the 550 only does negatives, not prints.

Is the Epson 600 better in this case?
>>
>>3169075
Of course it does prints, it's a bloody flatbed.
>>
File: 71CJrkbu%2BQL._SL1200_.jpg (153 KB, 1200x1119)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
>>3169092
It looks weird
>>
>>3169097
That's with a film holder on and some slide film photoshopped in.
>>
If I'm looking for a dedicated 35mm scanner for less than $500 cad, which are the best options? Plusteks that much better than a v550?
>>
>>3170553
If you just wanna shoot 35mm and not medium format or prints, then yeah go for a Plustek.
>>
>>3170573
Cool which one?
>>
>>3171618
8200i SE is probably your best bet.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.