Thardy
Veteran
It will be a sad day when my little film scanner gives up the ghost.
Could the current film camera manufacturers help their cause by developing a scanner?
- Thread starter Keith
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 79
- Views 10K
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
A slower way, for certain. But I'm not thinking that one would want to digitize every frame, either.
Currently, I am getting dev only and a CD and using that CD as a limited sort of "contact sheet"--it lets me see which specific frames I may want to do more with.
Back when I was developing and printing my BW, I made contact sheets of every roll and then printed the few that I really liked. And as clean as I tried to keep the darkroom, the negs, the enlarger, etc. I did have to spend at least a little time dust spotting. I always thought of that as just part of the process.
With a digitized frame, dust spotting is a one time process, I think.
Rob
bmattock
Veteran
I agree. I have a Scan Dual IV and a couple Epson flat beds. However, if I must, I will go to one of those Plustek scanners, which they seem to be making at somewhat reasonable prices. My main complaint with them is that they don't run under Linux/Vuescan, but I'm starting to run into that problem now that I'm running 64-bit Linux with my other scanners anyway. Therefore, I have installed Sun Virtualbox on my Linux machine and a Windows XP virtual machine from an old WinXP Pro disk I bought years ago, and thus I can do 'Windows-based' scans if I have to. Not as simple as I'd like, but it works. I suspect lash-ups and hacks will be the order of the day from here on out. I supposed I could put together a dedicated scanner server running 32-bit Linux, though. Hmmm. Well, that's an interesting thought.
dfoo
Well-known
If you've never scanned a negative you'd be amazed at all the crap that will show up. The _only_ time you can get a negative that has no dust or scratches on it is right after its been pulled from the drier (assuming that you have a clean drier). After that it starts to accumulate dust & scratches, and those guys show up like crazy on the neg when scanning. For B&W film at least you have a chance to get the film without dust since you develop that at home. With color its generally not the case.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Hire a Flextight out for a day once a month, once a week, whatever/whenever.
Why have something bulky and expensive at home that you have to service and look after when you can go to a studio that has one? @ £75 Per Day, why not? It's going to be cheaper than buying and maintaining a scanner that offers similar quality yourself.
Not that I would complain if more options where made available, to the people that want one at all, of course..
Why have something bulky and expensive at home that you have to service and look after when you can go to a studio that has one? @ £75 Per Day, why not? It's going to be cheaper than buying and maintaining a scanner that offers similar quality yourself.
Not that I would complain if more options where made available, to the people that want one at all, of course..
bmattock
Veteran
Most people live nowhere near where a commercial for-rent scanner is located.
chrishayton
Well-known
True and can be pretty damn expensive
Luckily I have 2 hasselblad and one imacon scanner at university available free 5 days a week 100 yrds from my house.
I have a coolscan iv for when i leave uni though. Terrified it'll die one day though
Dwig
Well-known
"help their cause": that's a rather odd way to look at it, especially given the manufacturers you list.
Leica has shown that they are not a digital camera producer who keeps older film models in the line while there is still a niche market for them. The last two major M models are digital and the R series is gone, replace by the all digital S series.
Ziess is a lens manufacturer supplying lenses to both film and digital markets. Cosina is also a lens manufacturer who makes film bodies for others and a few for themselves to fill a niche market. I would think either would be far better off with digital RF bodies than scanners, whether they develop them inhouse or partner with someone else.
Also, developing new products for a dwindling market is rarely worthwhile. Even when there is a decent expanding market, stepping out of your current skill set is not always the best approach. As an example look at Leica's wise choice to not develop its own software and to partner with Adobe instead. The only way any of these companies should consider scanners is as a marketer of some other company's product. Still, they would be stepping out of their sales skill set and such a move would be risky. I'd think that it would be much more likely that EPSON would buy Nikon's scanner line than any of these camera/lens company's would either introduce their own or pick up some existing product.
Ronald M
Veteran
Film is a small deal now and getting smaller. If you try a KM5400 with modern designed for scanning film, and compare it to a Nikon D700 full frame Dslr, you will find them competitive.
The new full frame sensers make a nice image and all I have to do plug the card into the camera.
Although I really enjoy my Leicas, the world does not have enough of us to justify a new quality machine for scanning. On top of it all , I like my darkroom chemicals and all.
The new full frame sensers make a nice image and all I have to do plug the card into the camera.
Although I really enjoy my Leicas, the world does not have enough of us to justify a new quality machine for scanning. On top of it all , I like my darkroom chemicals and all.
Ducky
Well-known
- Local time
- 2:43 PM
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
That was my first thought, Will, some quality copy stand that will give the quality of a good scanner.
As far as dust is concerned, it's there no matter how you scan.
dfoo
Well-known
Sure its there, but digital ICE does a good job of removing it.
gb hill
Veteran
What am I missing here? You guys make it sound like it's the end of the world as far as scanners are concerned. Did Epson go belly up on film scanners? I look at alot of photos and I don't see any difference in a photo scanned on a Nikon scanner than a scan on a Canoscan whatever flatbed. MOF I've seen some good scans from a cheap flatbed, least good enough for viewing here & on flickr. So I don't get all the negative riff.
emraphoto
Veteran
i think scanning for the internet and scanning for prints are two different beasts Greg.
most of the benefits of a dedicated, high end scanner are essentially nullified by jpeg compression.
most of the benefits of a dedicated, high end scanner are essentially nullified by jpeg compression.
gb hill
Veteran
I agree & I almost made the same statement. If I was going to be making prints I would surely want a dedicated film scanner. I think thats where you really would see the quality of owning one, provided you had a good printer. Looking at it in that aspect of shooting film & using a hybrid system to convert to digital just to make a print, I wonder what the cost of doing so would be compared to printing in a traditional darkroom. I have a darkroom for my b&w stuff but I can't afford the setup of scanner plus a good inkjet printer. Then the cost of inks are very expensive last time I checked. So I think better before one goes this route just go totally digital & any film one should send to a pro lab for high end prints.
bmattock
Veteran
I use both a Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV and an Epson Perfection 4490. There is a difference between the scan quality of them, with the Scan Dual IV being better in most cases. Exceptions exist when I am dealing with very scratched negatives, in which case the built-in ICE of the Epson wins the day. The Scan Dual IV is also quite a bit faster. I am told it's all down to the DMAX of the two; the Scan Dual being better in that regard.
For medium format, of course, I find the Epsons (I also have a 2400) more than sufficient for my needs.
emraphoto
Veteran
the only issue with that is going full digital has some compromises that some are not willing to make. i have a very, very difficult time with the propensity to highlight clipping in digital cameras and find the resulting 'look' to be down right ugly. i primarily shoot in situations that are very dynamic and slow and considered metering is not often an option. thus i shoot film quite a bit. yes you can blow highlights in film as well but the transitions don't look nearly as awful when it does occur.
as well i have yet to find an affordable digital replacement for 6x7 black and white negs.
i do use a hybrid system as time is most certainly an issue for me and what i can accomplish in cs is downright astounding.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Manufacturers saw a market for dedicated 35mm film scanners and filled it until there was not a large enough market left to sustain the profit in supplying it. People are rightly nervous about the future of their old 35mm negs WRT being able to do anything with them as for as being able to print them at large sizes. There is no problem, so far, in being able to digitize them for web use as most flatbed scanners can do that. The question with that is when will manufactures not see any advantage to having a flatbed scanner in their line up that can do that. If it was really viable from a profit POV to produce a dedicated 35mm film scanner to a price point that most could afford you would be seeing them. I hope somebody does but I am not counting on it.
Bob
Bob
bmattock
Veteran
Particular
Disassembler, occasional reassembler
I have done this a couple of times at photoVillage in NY @ $250 per day (£75 sounds like a good deal). I have mixed feelings about the whole experience. On the plus side the speed and resolution of the scanner is impressive.
I was mainly scanning 4"x5" and 6x7 positives and negatives. On the color negs the colors were so far off that I spent days correcting them in PS. The scan software is pretty straightforward, and I followed the instructions, but as the screen was not color managed I had no idea what I was getting until I got home.
Then it chewed up one of my 4"x5" chromes, and totally mangled it. Basically the film holder just didn't grip it tight enough, and it popped to the opposite curvature and the caught on a mechanical part. This threatened to happen on other images as well. Some that went through well have strange artifacts in the scan from where they popped.
Medium format is a breeze, but the 35mm film holders are slow and cumbersome to use. Not convenient for scanning larger quantities.
And finally lack of digital ice is a killer.
My point is not that the Flextight is not a great scanner, it is. But to get good results (value if you are on the clock) you need to be in control of it in a way that you can only be with your own scanner. This is the reality of scanning on any scanner. You clean it, you set it up, you test it, you adjust the software. This is simply not possible in a rental situation, although I wish it were. In the end 50% of the scans needed redoing.
For the same money I could have bought an Epson v700, and for all its shortcomings (speed and resolution) ended up with equal or better results.
Gradskater
Well-known
I have a plustek opticfilm 7300, and am pleased with the scans I get from it. I have posted full res samples in other threads. No, its not a nikon or a minolta, but I have seen scans from those machines (online, not prints) that don't look any better (and many look worse) than what I can pull out of my plustek. A lot of it has to do with how good you are at tweaking the scanning and post processing software. I have only heard good things about the plustek from people who actually have and use the scanner. If you are looking for a NEW scanner that is still supported, I would consider the opticfilm line.