finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

I have a supply of 35mm slides and 35mm and 2 1/4 negatives which I would like to scan. I have been doing some research on UHH and need some input from members here. The Epson V600 seems very reasonably priced but I am wondering what members experience has been with both the V600 and the pricier V800. Is the V800 really that much better than the V600? Also I have upgraded to Catalina on my mac and I ran across a comment that these scanners are not compatible with Catalina. Obviously the V600 is appealing due to its price-just wondering if it will be the one I should buy. Thanks in advance for your help.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

For really good results, you may also consider the Plustek 1200.

finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Thanks, I'll check it out.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Copy setups using macro lenses yield better sharpness. But they require post-processing for best results. The Negative Lab Pro software plugin and a recent version of Lightroom Classic CC are recommended for working with the macro copy method.

EPSON offers better auto color correction and dust removal options. The V600 is great for prints, just OK for 35mm slides/negs, and better for 120 format and larger films. The V800 is much better for 35mm film than the V600.

Focus of slides and negs is a common challenge/problem with flatbed scanners.

A dedicated film scanner may be better is you want a scanner.

Hamrick Viewscan and Silverfast Pro 8 are two software options for scanning into MacOS Catalina. EPSON recently introduced a 64-bit Mac driver for many of their scanners. You can check their website to see if it supports the V600 and V800.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I'll check it out as well. I've got boxes full of photos and negatives that need to be digitized as well. I've been planning on going with the Epson 600 or 650, whatever number it is.

finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Many thanks, that was very helpful.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Your best bet is the combination of an Epson scanner and Silverfast software.
--Bob

xposure

I have a Epson 600 and it works OK for 35mm and for 21/4 excellent. If you just want to digitize snap shots it is good, but for real photographs use a dedicated scanner like Imacon, or Nikon.

finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Many thanks

finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Am thinking Epson V800 and Silverfast Thanks

EAM Loc: Milwaukee W

I can see a business with all of these scanners. Customers come in and rent whatever yields the best result. Have experts on hand to help with computer PP sessions. Equip center with coffee and wine.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I think those are superb choices.
--Bob

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Digital scrapbooking parties... I like it!

Having a wide format digital printer in the corner would add revenue, too.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Are the 2-1/4 "negatives" color or B&W?

If they are color, I'd recommend a dedicated film scanner (not a flatbed).

However, quality film scanners capable of handling medium format film are expensive. I found a Pacific Image PF120 and a Braun FS120 currently available, both of which have rather low 3200 ppi resolution. Actually, that's probably fine for medium format film, but not so much for 35mm film (and it would be nice if you could get just one scanner for both).

There are a number of models that have been available in the past that you might find used. One that I think would be good is the Plustek OpticFilm 120. It has 5300 ppi resolution and was bundled with excellent Silverfast AI Studio software (the best... which itself sells for $450 when purchased separately). Here is a review of this now-discontinued scanner, by someone who found the Silverfast software difficult to use: https://www.pcmag.com/review/327634/plustek-opticfilm-120. That reviewer did acknowledge that Silverfast AI Studio is to scanning what Photoshop is to image editing... but preferred to use simpler Vuescan. I've used both and can tell you both work, but Silverfast is much more capable.

Buying used, you might save some off the original $2000 selling price of the Plustek OpticFilm 120. (They have a new model that's lower 3200 ppi resolution and doesn't include nearly as good software, but also costs less.) Another excellent MF scanner that's no longer selling new is the Nikon 9000 ED. I've used the 35mm film version (4000 ED) for many years. The original Nikon software was good, but no longer works with modern operating systems. However both Silverfast and Vuescan work fine with it (Silverfast is scanner specific... $80 Vuescan isn't.) The Nikon 9000 ED has always been pricey. The only used one I found (at Adorama) is selling for $2799. It scans at 4000 ppi and comes 35mm film strip, 35mm mounted slide and 120/200 film strip holders.

If you're working with B&W medium format film, dedicated film scanners are not ideal. The problem is that silver-based film actually have grains of silver that block light to form the highlight areas and clear areas that form the shadows. Color films (mostly) use dyes that allow some transmission of light through all colors and tonalities. B&W film doesn't. It tends to get very contrasty when scanned using a transmissive light source. There's loss of detail in both the shadows and highlights. The best way to scan B&W images made from traditional silver-based negatives is actually to make a print with an enlarger, and then scan that on a reflective flat bed. (Note: Much less common, chromogenic B&W film uses dyes, is processed using the same C41 as color neg film and scans well. But traditional enlargements made from it tend to look low contrast and bland unless given special handling.)

If you don't have a lot of medium format film to scan, you might opt to have it done by a service... and just worry about the 35mm film.

35mm film, in particular, is better done with a dedicated scanner, than with a flatbed. If you don't need a scanner to handle both MF and 35mm film... just need to scan 35mm film strips and mounted slides... there are a whole lot more options and prices are considerably more reasonable. For example, Plustek 8200 AI is 7200 ppi, uses Silverfast AI Studio software, has built in dust and scratch detection and repair, and sells new for $499. There are other Plustek models costing less that use Silverfast SE Plus and Silverfast SE software, which are "lite" versions. Pacific Image has two models with 10,000 ppi resolution that appear to use their own, proprietary software, selling for $379 and $450. There also are some models that can autofeed slides in batches, but those tend to cost more... approx. $900 to over $2000. (One reason I bought the Nikon 4000 ED years ago was the bulk slide feeder that was available for it.)

As mentioned in a previous post, dedicated film scanners use very high quality macro lenses. Flatbed scanners do not. That's okay for MF film (along with the lower resolution some use), but not great for 35mm format images. Some flatbeds have a secondary light source for transmissive illumination, great for slide film and color negs, but not for B&W (as noted above). Flatbeds with reflective light sources are not great for film scanning.

As mentioned above, some scanners and their software can detect and correct dust and scratches on film. This is a very valuable feature that can save a lot of time retouching images later. Not sure if it's true of other scanners, but my Nikon 4000 ED uses a secondary light source (IR?) to detect dust and scratches. That works well.

Look for a scanner with the highest possible "D-Max". This is the scanner's dynamic range. Ideal is around 4 or higher. 3.5 to 3.6 is quite good. Some are as low as 3.0 to 3.2. I'd avoid any scanner that doesn't have D-Max stated in it's specs... it is probably even lower. You can boost dynamic range to some extent in post processing, but it's always better when you capture as much as possible with the scan, for best detail at the highlight and shadow extremes.

Some slide films are "tricky". Kodachrome, in particular, can give weird results. Some software is good at correcting it.

Ektachrome film, pretty much all Fuji slide film and most other transparency films scan really well. Color neg film typically scans very well, too. The orange mask on color negs is "removed" by the scanner, to give you an accurate preview to make your adjustments (this is one place where I found Silverfast really excels... Vuescan wasn't as good, but was faster than the old Nikon scanning software I'd used in the past).

Scans create big files.... REALLY big files. When I use my 4000 ppi Nikon film scanner at it's highest quality setting it generates 130MB, 16-bit TIFF files from 35mm slides and negs. You can imagine how large a 7200 ppi or 10,000 ppi image file might be! You can fill up hard drives really fast with film scans. This is one reason that MF film scans are often done at a lower ppi.

finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Alan, many thanks for a very informative and thoughtful response! Really appreciate it.