![]() I actually found it easier than expected with most settings pretty straight forward. There’s a lot of detractors and much has been written about how hard it is to use. All versions are plenty capable but also a bit eccentric at times. The cheaper 81i SE comes with a slightly pared down version of the software that lacks some features, but the differences seem mostly academic. The preceding models in the 7000 series are based on the same hardware, but there’s again some differences in software and features.Īll versions come with Silverfast – generally referred to as the Photoshop of scanning software. There’s also the lower priced 8100, lacking infrared dust reduction but is otherwise identical. The two 8200i models, called SE and AI, differ only in software. There are three options in the Plustek Opticfilm 8000-line. The main disadvantage of the scanner is that each frame needs to be manually fed and scanned individually. It scans negatives or positives at up to 7200dpi, resulting in huge 60 megapixel files. It’s a compact unit and very reasonably priced. It’s a current production dedicated 35mm film scanner. Much like with cameras or phones or cars or toasters.Īfter looking into pretty much every option on the market as well as a bunch of discontinued ones I decided on the Plustek Opticfilm 8200i. The choice instead boils down to balancing a number of advantages against a number of disadvantages. Never mind that there’s no clear cut best option when it comes to scanners. There’s a lot of information out there, but it’s hard to find anything comprehensive that’s not either very theoretical or utterly subjective. Into a new rabbit hole I went – what scanners are good, how good is the image quality, what’s a reasonable cost, how long does scanning take, and so on. However I soon concluded that if I scanned myself I could get my cost down to a third and cut delivery time to days instead of weeks – a compelling proposition indeed. None of the labs were significantly better, cheaper or faster as a whole. This, as well as the cost and two week delivery time has made me look into alternatives.Īfter looking into lab offerings both locally and abroad I was disheartened. ![]() I’ve been reasonably satisfied with the 8 megapixel results but at times I’ve felt that the scans have looked a bit harsh and overly processed. Another major issue is cost.įor development and scanning of a roll I’ve paid close to €40 at Crimson – my local pro lab. ![]() Frank recently wrote a good summary of the advantages here (the comment section is also full with insights and experiences). Good looking, finished results of adequate quality without doing anything more than asking when dropping off the roll. There’s a lot of appeal in having a good lab scan your photos at development. But there’s been one aspect I’ve felt lacking – scans. The more methodical approach, excellent tools and delayed gratification have made the experience immensely rewarding. Lately I’ve been enjoying a return to film photography. Now a finished original – ready to be printed, backed up and shared in an instant to friends and family across the globe. With a few preset commands contrast is increased, sharpening applied, and exposure balanced. Low contrast and fuzzy the photo doesn’t exactly look appealing. The moment preserved on silver and gelatin is now displayed on my laptop. ![]() The screen flickers and an image gradually appears. The black box at my side gives of a mechanical moan.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |