Hold your rotten tomatoes, I'm asking a scanner question.

I am just learning to use my Epson 4990 and I love it. Got it on Craigslist for $155. I got it to scan my MF stuff and to do my quick and dirty 35mm scans.
 
One more thing to consider..............

Drivers and software and operating systems, Oh My!

Case in point: The CD that shipped with my new scanner had drivers for Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000. That's all folks!

Epson USA has a page where they list downloads for newer operating systems. Remember, my 1680 was launched in 2000 or 2001 and discontinued a few years ago. Epson has drivers for it up to and including Vista 64-bit. That speaks well for Epson's support not only after the sale but after a product is out of production.

Think about it.
 
A dedicated film scanner beats flatbeds, especially cheaper ones (V700 might be able to nearly compete with some film scanners).

So just get the Scan Dual IV if you want the best value for the price...

Im sure it will easily beat any Canon 8800F or Epson V500 or older models in quality, both sharpness and dynamic range.

Even Scan Dual II or III could be considered I think.

Sure you get some web scans with a flatbed too............
 
With $$$ being a prime consideration, and the web being the destination,
I'm rather surprised that no one has mentioned the Canon Canoscan 4400F.
Decent results for under $100.
 
Last edited:
Heck,

For 35mm film only and web posting only, my HP 53xx scanner would be ideal. 2400 DPI 48 bit color. Interpolated DPI up to some rediculous number. Document feeder. With the arrival of my Epson scanner, the HP is collecting dust. Make me an offer I can't refuse.

Rider+on+White+Bull-3-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
It is not only about resolution. Especially when you start scanning slide film, but sometimes also with dense or contrasty negatives. Some scanners even lose the detail in the most transparent parts of the film (negative shadows).

Also, I guess grain aliasing will occurr with different amounts depengind on the scanner. Many would also still like to see the "real grain" instead of the blurred stuff you get with most (or all) flatbeds produced so far (we'll see about the V900) and lousier film scanners...
 
Ditto the recommendation on the Epson V500. For $175, it'll do what you needing, including scanning KR very nicely. 800 DPI is more than you need for most applications. Scan times are modest, usually 1-2 minutes on 1200 DPI.

It'll also scan medium format. While that's not a need right now, at some point you'll need to an it'll save you $30 at the store.

3202337929_c307db76e5.jpg
 
oops, I think I missed this part... :)

so, you are giving up a functioning darkroom and the ability to make any good prints and only care about looking at your photos on a computer? I don't get it... why not just get a cheap $100 digital camera?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything... it just doesn't make sense to me...

Just get the cheapest Epson flatbed you can find, it will fill your stated needs.

>>
2.) I do not seek to make prints from my scanned negs. I mainly want to scan them for viewing/editing on the computer and posting on the web.
 
Going one or two generations back in dedicated film scanners might give you more bang-for-the-buck if you choose carefully.

My choices would be:

- Minolta (Dual Scan IV; Dimage Scan Elite 2900)

- Nikon (Coolscan III & IV)

Any of the above should be available well within your budget; anyone charging significantly more than $300 or so is simply charging too much, unless there are some optional goodies thrown in (like bulk-film loaders in the case of the Nikons...but make sure they work!). These should give you all you need and then some.


- Barrett
 
800 dpi is enough for some-kind-of web-pictures... But If you want a print look (even about) like a film print, you need at least double, probably like 3200 dpi. A Plustek 7200 will give about 2900, Scan Dual IV about 3100 (www.filmscanner.info).

I paid 181 euros including shipping for my Scan Dual IV and I'm happy. Could be they are cheaper in the US than in Europe, but here they often go for 200+ euros (even 250). Still I think it is a good price for this kind of scanner, compared to the double or more that a Coolscan V will cost.

Of course the scanner has to be well kept for these prices. My own was like new.
 
amateriat said:
Going one or two generations back in dedicated film scanners might give you more bang-for-the-buck if you choose carefully.

My choices would be:

- Minolta (Dual Scan IV; Dimage Scan Elite 2900)

- Nikon (Coolscan III & IV)

Any of the above should be available well within your budget; anyone charging significantly more than $300 or so is simply charging too much, unless there are some optional goodies thrown in (like bulk-film loaders in the case of the Nikons...but make sure they work!). These should give you all you need and then some.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

But again, with the Windows OP, you won't be able to run them correctly, I'll bet! If you're an Apple user, you're probably safe with this suggestion. But a Coolscan V for about $500 is too good to pass up. I see them listed at "that place" all the time. It works on Vista machines. I have one set up that way.
 
Last edited:
Greetings Everyone! Please forgive my slow response for the many and much appreciated replies you've all directed towards my question. I'm sorry if I seemed to had gone AWOL, but I assure you I was reading all along, but sometimes feel too brain dead at the end of a hard day at work to generate a decent reply.

Some of you had asked if I had fully done away with a darkroom, and I would like to make clear that I fully intend to re-establich my darkroom at a later time. I have to finish up some lengthy renovations beforehand however, and thought I could make some use of a film scanner in the meantime.

RUEBEN: Indeed, I have found the RF Forum a FAR more friendlier terrain to roam in. Not near the ammount of rudeness or "egocentric" street-fighting one might observe or encounter in other forum/s. This forum is THE BEST!


REGARDING A SCANNER: After reading the many suggestions in this post, I think I'm better able to make my mind up. It seems that I would fair better to have two scanners. One flatbed and one dedicated. While I DID mention that I specifically wanted to only scan 35mm, I must keep in mind that I still own both medium and large format camera setups. A flatbed scanner would also serve for use with the latter formats. Given this, and my present capital limitations, I should go for the flatbed first, but since I mainly want to scan my Leica negatives, I find myself still leaning strongly towards starting with a Minolta IV scanner instead. Esspecially since it now seems that most of it's issues occur only with Windows Vista. Since I still use Windows XP, I should be able to manage full use of the Minolta IV scanner with my current OP system. Which ever decision I make nonetheless, please have no doubt how valuable your input has all been. I am grateful to you all and looking forward to posting some of my 35mm images taken with my M2 on this forum soon.



Charles
 
Last edited:
I have a v700. I was using that for 35mm and medium format scanning, but found the 35mm output unacceptable. I then bought a Nikon 5000 ED for 35mm, and the scanner is superior in all respects, but one. It is much much faster to scan, and the scans are much sharper and detailed than the v700. The bad news is that the scans show every little scratch, watermark and dust on the negatives for black and white. For color and slides this is less of a problem due to the use of Ice.
 
Greetings dfoo, I am quite impressed with the Nikon 5000 ED! If only I was willing to sell off some of my beloved camera collection, I would be more apt to buy one. I understand how dust and scratches can be a pain, but fortunately I can manage most of them in PS with the added benefit of some good caffeine and music.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom