Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2015, 10:24 PM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
All that is to say that the Primefilm XA / Reflecta 10M produces better scans from 35mm film than any flatbed on the market today including the Epsons. The only way to get better scans than the XA / 10M can do is by spending $12,000.
If $12K is the price point then you most definitely have to consider getting a Coolscan in the used market.

06-02-2015, 08:04 AM   #32
Forum Member
Flylooper's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: McKenzie River Valley, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 80
Primefilm XA vs. my flatbed scanner

Interesting. I read the review of the Primefilm XA scanner (Thanks, incidently) and it appears to to all things to all 35 mm people (esp. with the SilverFast software) ....especially those of us who are of limited means when it comes to amateur photography. I really like the XA's ability to handle entire strips of film. That's a huge plus. Had I known, I might have gotten one, but I plunked down my bucks on a Canoscan 9000 a few months back.


I have to say that the Canoscan is doing a great job on my 35mm negs, which is to say I'm very satisfied with its output. The drawback on the Primefilm XA, at least in my case, is that it only does 35mm. I happen to shoot medium format and 35mm. I just can't imagine carrying two scanners to do that job....or at least it would make me wonder about the cost/benefit of doing so, not to mention my non-photography friends wondering if I've lost a few marbles.


My current rationale is that (a) I can make a lot of very positive resolution improvements, if needed, in Lightroom/Photoshop and (b) if, for some reason I have an Ansel Adams moment, I can send the exposure out for professional scanning/printing. Trust me, I have darned few of them!










QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
The Primefilm XA costs $450.00. "The best rated affordable scanner is currently the Primefilm XA / Reflecta 10M depending on where you live in the world."




The $12,000 scanner you refer to is mentioned by name in the following review of the $450.00US Primefilm XA.

Here's the full review:


Here's an excerpt:
"Scanning slides or negatives at 5000 ppi will yield an effective resolution of 4300 ppi. This very high effective value places the Reflecta RPS 10M at the top of all film scanners currently available on the market. Only the Hasselblad scanners yield a higher effective resolution."

The emphasis is mine because I can think of no better endorsement.

I would feel poorly about misleading anyone by implying that the only way to get quality scans for non-commmercial work is to spend $12,000. For fine art for display and sale in an art gallery a Hassy is appropriate if one wishes to scan in-house. I would imagine, however, that if one is shooting film at the fine art level one is probably using an end to end silver gelatin process with medium format, not a 35mm hybrid workflow (beyond initial proofing at least). For medium format beyond 120 film a flatbed does become a viable option. I believe most fine art film photographers would send their negatives to a master printer or have their own darkroom, though.

All that is to say that the Primefilm XA / Reflecta 10M produces better scans from 35mm film than any flatbed on the market today including the Epsons. The only way to get better scans than the XA / 10M can do is by spending $12,000.
06-02-2015, 10:43 PM   #33
Veteran Member
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 962
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
If $12K is the price point then you most definitely have to consider getting a Coolscan in the used market.
What are you on about? The XA has tested better than the Coolscans and the XA costs $450.00US

---------- Post added 06-02-15 at 10:49 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by disconnekt Quote
The XE is on sale for 279 (originally 399): Pacific Image Prime Film XE Film Scanner PRIMEFILM XE B&H Photo
The XA is on sale for 399 (originally 549): Pacific Image Prime Film XA Slide & Negative PRIMEFILM XA

Those are really good prices. I'll reiterate what's been said elsewhere and that is you need to pony up for Vuescan or SilverFast. I you don't get one or the other you'll have wasted you money on the XE or XA. I use Vuescan and it makes me happy.

---------- Post added 06-02-15 at 10:49 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by disconnekt Quote
The XE is on sale for 279 (originally 399): Pacific Image Prime Film XE Film Scanner PRIMEFILM XE B&H Photo
The XA is on sale for 399 (originally 549): Pacific Image Prime Film XA Slide & Negative PRIMEFILM XA

Those are really good prices. I'll reiterate what's been said elsewhere and that is you need to pony up for Vuescan or SilverFast. I you don't get one or the other you'll have wasted you money on the XE or XA. I use Vuescan and it makes me happy.
06-03-2015, 06:08 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
What are you on about? The XA has tested better than the Coolscans and the XA costs $450.00US


If by better you mean in terms of resolution at 4300 vs Coolscan of 3900 then that is true. Also the price is encouraging.


Unfortunately, this 10% gain in resolution comes at more than double the time to scan - quite a bit more with ICE, compared to the Coolscan 5000 reviewed by the same website. My own scans with the 5000 are even faster by 10-20 seconds. Of course anyone who has ever done a lot of scanning knows that post work can easily exceed actual setup and scan times.


The 5000 has more and better film handling.


The 9000 can handle medium format at 4000dpi while the Hassy drops to 3200.


The review is reasonable but not long term. How accurate is the color/contrast across film types/brands? How good is the ICE? How much post is required? How is the autofocus? What is the build quality?


Having personally scanned over 20,000 frames of a great variety of types/brands of film, I can characterize scanning with the Coolscan+Nikonscan as uneventful. Autofocus is perfect. ICE is effective with the 5000 and perfect with the 9000. Color/contrast requires the least amount of post work I have seen across all the scanners I have tried - various desktops, minilabs and Imacon/Hassy. Majority of it requires no scan adjustments or post work at all.


I appreciate having an option if my Coolscans ever fail. If someone out there has had considerable experience with this new scanner, that would be good to know.

06-03-2015, 07:41 AM - 1 Like   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by Flylooper Quote
Interesting. I read the review of the Primefilm XA scanner (Thanks, incidently) and it appears to to all things to all 35 mm people (esp. with the SilverFast software) ....especially those of us who are of limited means when it comes to amateur photography. I really like the XA's ability to handle entire strips of film. That's a huge plus. Had I known, I might have gotten one, but I plunked down my bucks on a Canoscan 9000 a few months back.


I have to say that the Canoscan is doing a great job on my 35mm negs, which is to say I'm very satisfied with its output. The drawback on the Primefilm XA, at least in my case, is that it only does 35mm. I happen to shoot medium format and 35mm. I just can't imagine carrying two scanners to do that job....or at least it would make me wonder about the cost/benefit of doing so, not to mention my non-photography friends wondering if I've lost a few marbles.


My current rationale is that (a) I can make a lot of very positive resolution improvements, if needed, in Lightroom/Photoshop and (b) if, for some reason I have an Ansel Adams moment, I can send the exposure out for professional scanning/printing. Trust me, I have darned few of them!
ILFORD PHOTO - Processing a Black & White film

Forget about scanners get a free enlarger from a widow or some one going digital.
Plate of glass for proof printing 6x6 or 35mm.
Learn how to look at a negative...
06-03-2015, 07:48 AM   #36
Veteran Member
AquaDome's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New Carlisle, IN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,475
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
ILFORD PHOTO - Processing a Black & White film

Forget about scanners get a free enlarger from a widow or some one going digital.
Plate of glass for proof printing 6x6 or 35mm.
Learn how to look at a negative...
True. A scanner is a temporary measure.
The ultimate goal is to produce prints, not scan negatives. Enlargers are being abandoned on curbs these days.
If you just want digital images, shoot digital.
06-03-2015, 08:03 AM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
QuoteOriginally posted by AquaDome Quote
True. A scanner is a temporary measure.
The ultimate goal is to produce prints, not scan negatives. Enlargers are being abandoned on curbs these days.
If you just want digital images, shoot digital.
Shooting film and scanning is not the same as shooting digital straightaway as the film capture itself is the film's character. Ideally, a scanner captures the film's characteristics accurately without adding or taking away from it (color, contrast, details). I have many optical 20" X 30" prints to compare my scans of negatives to and of course I can just compare slides directly.

06-03-2015, 09:36 AM - 1 Like   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
Ideally, a scanner captures the film's characteristics accurately...
Pity about in the real world.

We just had an interchange about my scanner is better than yours with $ signs and zeros.
Nothing beats a silver halide print on paper.
06-03-2015, 09:46 AM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
Pity about in the real world.

We just had an interchange about my scanner is better than yours with $ signs and zeros.
Nothing beats a silver halide print on paper.
In today's connected world this is good to learn quicker what is real for each of our personal needs. We're photographers and are experts when it comes to understanding compromises.

Silver prints are good too.
06-03-2015, 10:18 AM   #40
Veteran Member
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 962
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
If by better you mean in terms of resolution at 4300 vs Coolscan of 3900 then that is true. Also the price is encouraging.
The XA came out in the middle of my film scanning research; I starting to look at Coolscans but the XE review and price of a new XA vs a used CoolscanXXXX sold me.


QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
Unfortunately, this 10% gain in resolution comes at more than double the time to scan - quite a bit more with ICE, compared to the Coolscan 5000 reviewed by the same website. My own scans with the 5000 are even faster by 10-20 seconds. Of course anyone who has ever done a lot of scanning knows that post work can easily exceed actual setup and scan times.
Scan times are not an issue for me, I want a good scan and if it takes a little longer than a Coolscan that costs more and can only be found used without a warranty I'm way good. To maximize my efficiency, however, I use low res previews to proof my shots and cull anything that is obviously not what I was shooting for before I do any scans. I then auto-scan the whole whole uncut roll at final resolution using the minimum necessary adjustments, come back to the workstation when it's done, and cull anything else that doesn't work for me. Once I'm happy I import into my LR catalog.


QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
The 5000 has more and better film handling.
I enjoy scanning a whole roll of negatives instead of using holders (I tried the XE before the XA). Mounted slides with the XA are another matter; tedious to say the least.


QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
The 9000 can handle medium format at 4000dpi while the Hassy drops to 3200.
I'm was only relating my post to 35mm since the OP referenced shooting with a DSLR. If I needed to scan MF I might not have gone with the XA. I did consider the Coolscans for if or when I decide to shoot some MF but without a warranty and Nikon's inevitable EOSL I'm waiting to see what PF / Reflecta have in store for MF since they haven't updated those scanners in awhile. Depending how large I go with MF an Epson flatbed might be the solution on the day, MF is still TBD for me. Maybe for the OP as well.


QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
The review is reasonable but not long term. How accurate is the color/contrast across film types/brands? How good is the ICE? How much post is required? How is the autofocus? What is the build quality?
Having used the XA for the past year I can say that the results suit my needs and workflow when using Vuescan. Vuescan allows for myriad adjustments that can be saved as defaults for each type of film you might be shooting. Having said that, each manufacturer's batch of emulsion, the way the film was shot, the way it was processed, etc., means there will be variance within any given batch of film stock; Vuescan allows for adjustments within the program or for such differences including film profiling of each roll or batch of film using using IT8 targets. Accurate film scanning, as with DSLR capture, is dependent on accurate profiling; how deep one wants to go is up to the individual.

The long term reliability is still unknown to me since I had to return the original scanner for a replacement. Again, I was able to return the defective scanner for replacement and am just beginning to use the replacement scanner. My initial impression is that the first scanner had some issues from the beginning that I didn't notice until a few day before the warranty expired; even though I exhaustively researched scanning 35mm film the XA was my first film scanner. The replacement scanner is illustrating to me how the first one should have worked. I was an early adopter, however; I bought the XA the day B&H listed it as "in stock". The serial number was #83 and, at the time, PacificImage Electronics didn't even have the XA listed on it's website. So, I feel got stung by being an early adopter which is pretty common in today's world. A warranty is key for me when it comes to items like this.

I want to mention that PacificImaging Electronics responded to my problems in a manner that was extraordinary. Their level of service equaled that of the highest-end professional vendors I regularly work with in my day job. While their communication seemed at first to be lacking, I found out that after receiving my email they immediately started the resolution process. When I called and left a message to follow up they were already in the process of sending me another scanner. I would have no problem buying a medium format scanner from them in the future. I'm really impressed with them, Richard and Wendy in particular.


QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
Having personally scanned over 20,000 frames of a great variety of types/brands of film, I can characterize scanning with the Coolscan+Nikonscan as uneventful. Autofocus is perfect. ICE is effective with the 5000 and perfect with the 9000. Color/contrast requires the least amount of post work I have seen across all the scanners I have tried - various desktops, minilabs and Imacon/Hassy. Majority of it requires no scan adjustments or post work at all.
During my research I found that your opinion is shared my most, if not all, Coolscan users who bought new or who were able to acquire a fully functional unit on the used market.


QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
I appreciate having an option if my Coolscans ever fail. If someone out there has had considerable experience with this new scanner, that would be good to know.
I've notice on various vorums a few Coolscan users feeling the same way.


Here are some early Tri-X scans:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/mick_davies/14830293835/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mick_davies/14643294119/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mick_davies/14767641653/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/

---------- Post added 06-03-15 at 10:26 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
ILFORD PHOTO - Processing a Black & White film

Forget about scanners get a free enlarger from a widow or some one going digital.
Plate of glass for proof printing 6x6 or 35mm.
Learn how to look at a negative...
Ultimately, "Yes!" I'm thinking of doing it sooner than later. I know this sounds crazy but I think there is going to be a surge in interest.

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 06-03-2015 at 10:57 AM.
06-03-2015, 11:38 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
I enjoy scanning a whole roll of negatives instead of using holders (I tried the XE before the XA). Mounted slides with the XA are another matter; tedious to say the least.
The Coolscan's automated film handling (whole rolls, slide feeder and strip feeder) saves time both in scanning and in post. But I shot a lot of 110 film and being able to manually scan them in the 5000 was not too painful since it takes about 15 seconds per frame. Of course much simpler on the 9000 as I can scan the whole strip at a time.




QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
I'm was only relating my post to 35mm since the OP referenced shooting with a DSLR. If I needed to scan MF I might not have gone with the XA. I did consider the Coolscans for if or when I decide to shoot some MF but without a warranty and Nikon's inevitable EOSL I'm waiting to see what PF / Reflecta have in store for MF since they haven't updated those scanners in awhile. Depending how large I go with MF an Epson flatbed might be the solution on the day, MF is still TBD for me. Maybe for the OP as well.
Once accustomed to the process and results with the 5000, the 9000 was the only choice.

QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
Having used the XA for the past year I can say that the results suit my needs and workflow when using Vuescan. Vuescan allows for myriad adjustments that can be saved as defaults for each type of film you might be shooting. Having said that, each manufacturer's batch of emulsion, the way the film was shot, the way it was processed, etc., means there will be variance within any given batch of film stock; Vuescan allows for adjustments within the program or for such differences including film profiling of each roll or batch of film using using IT8 targets. Accurate film scanning, as with DSLR capture, is dependent on accurate profiling; how deep one wants to go is up to the individual.
Prior to and after acquiring the Coolscans, I've scanned using various dedicated and flatbed scanners as well as sent out for scans to minilabs and Imacons/Hassy another few thousand frames and I have since rescanned most all with the Coolscans.

Good luck with your efforts and I hope to continue to hear good things about that scanner just in case I ever need a replacement and can no longer get a working Coolscan.
06-04-2015, 12:17 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
In today's connected world this is good to learn quicker what is real for each of our personal needs. We're photographers and are experts when it comes to understanding compromises.

Silver prints are good too.
My scanner was 10 GBP
My enlarger and lens was free it came with sets of trays
If you scan you need to control dmax.
I only scan keepers for proof prints and filing.
06-04-2015, 04:59 AM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
My scanner was 10 GBP
My enlarger and lens was free it came with sets of trays
If you scan you need to control dmax.
I only scan keepers for proof prints and filing.
No doubt that when it comes to scanners, you do really get what you paid for and that's why the Coolscans command the prices they do in the used market. I could have saved a lot of money and time going straight to the Coolscan. But just like everyone, I was trying to save some money and time. Over 20,000 scans later, now I know. It's all good since I continue to use film.
06-04-2015, 11:03 PM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
No doubt that when it comes to scanners, you do really get what you paid for and that's why the Coolscans command the prices they do in the used market. I could have saved a lot of money and time going straight to the Coolscan. But just like everyone, I was trying to save some money and time. Over 20,000 scans later, now I know. It's all good since I continue to use film.
I only use the toy scanner for prof not for bragging or diagnostics.
I have a light box (free) for diagnostics, dust etc.
06-05-2015, 11:49 PM   #45
Forum Member
Flylooper's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: McKenzie River Valley, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 80
Lol...seems we have some pretty hardcore shooters here. Film vs. digital vs.scanners vs. enlargers.... Yeesh!

I'm kind of a hybrid, I guess. I have returned to shooting film after decades of being away from it. I've resurrected my 50 year old Pentax Spotmatic and bought a 645N MF which I love shooting. I scan my negs because the post shoot work with Lightroom and Photoshop really leave me with so many ways to treat a shot.

Yeah, I used to enlarge when I was a kid but in my old age now, it's a pain in the neck to prep and clean up afterward. Plus...all that paper! Film and scanning give me the best of both worlds, I think.

( I didn't meant highjack the thread but... since you asked. [grin]

Last edited by Flylooper; 06-06-2015 at 06:43 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, beauty, cost, darkroom, dslr, film, image, money, negatives, paper, photo, photography, post, primefilm, print, process, replacement, resolution, sale, scan, scanner, silverfast, vuescan, warranty, water, xa, xe
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Developing C41 at home Painter Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 4 12-23-2014 09:12 AM
Doing C-41 at home If you understand B&W developing Jamey777 Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 16 08-06-2014 08:42 AM
Want to start playing with video, but... eccs19 Video Recording and Processing 38 07-23-2014 02:20 PM
Want to start digitizing old pics, are flatbeds up to the job? Glen_S Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 11 10-26-2011 05:53 AM
Want to start residential/commercial/land photorgaphy business acarpov Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 01-30-2011 11:49 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top