That's because DSLR scanning is more nuanced. I'm getting very mixed answers here regarding scan quality. Do you want to tinker with a repro hack and a 2K$ DSLR or enjoy film photography? Up to you :) I guess in theory you could get exceptional results with a super expensive DSLR based setup provided you spent the time to optimise every link in the chain up to the industrial standard to which say a Coolscan 8000 or 9000 are optimised.
For 120, artefacts introduced by the stitching software used._major_ artefacts introduced by X-trans sensor sampling.Artefacts introduced by Bayer sensor sampling.Poor focus due to issues in establishing perfect planarity.Not surprising, given that any of these DSLR film scans are only as good as the weakest link in the setup. In most cases, the results are, for my standards, mediocre - especially so for medium format negatives. You'll be able to find plenty on facebook film photography groups, flickr, etc. Now, why would scanning the same negative to an exceptional level of quality be any simpler?Īs for a DSLR sample, I do not have a DSLR anymore so can't provide you with a sample. It is so difficult that most professional photographers of yore relied on the services of a professional, a 'printer'. I'm truly puzzled about this: after all, wet printing a negative in a darkroom is a lengthy and difficult process. I have seen countless people complaining about poor results only to find they were mostly expecting a plug and play solution. As stated, I think you'll find that most complaints about the Plustek or any other film scanner for that matter, will be due to operator error.