Scanning 35mm Negatives

D

davek

Newbie
Local time
6:59 AM
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
8
View My Gallery
Is there any apperciable difference between the Nikon 5000 and 9000 for scanning 35mm B&W and color negatives also, do the dedicated film scanners offer significant advantages over the new Epson V750.
Printing up to 16x22 on a Epson 3880 and no requirement for MF or LF scanning.
 
davek said:
Is there any apperciable difference between the Nikon 5000 and 9000 for scanning 35mm B&W and color negatives also, do the dedicated film scanners offer significant advantages over the new Epson V750.
Printing up to 16x22 on a Epson 3880 and no requirement for MF or LF scanning.
Click to expand...

This is one of those areas where you'll find loads of conflicting opinion but for what it's worth here's my two cents.

I have a Nikon Coolscan IV and an Epson V750 and I almost exclusively scan traditional monochrome film such as HP5+ and Tri-X. I have compared the results of the two scanners and I prefer the Epson;.the results are as sharp (to my eyes) as the Nikon but the grain is less pronounced. The reason is that Nikon uses LEDs (collimated light) while the Epson uses cold cathode (diffused light). This is analogous to the difference between a condenser and diffusion enlarger.

I have a couple of other reasons for preferring the Epson: you can scan all formats up to 5x4 and you can scan four 35mm negative strips simultaneously, which speeds up things a lot. What I don't like about the Epson is the negative carriers, which don't always hold the film flat. A solution to this is to purchase the glass inserts from Better Scanning but this adds yet more glass and means an even greater possibility of dust. Also, you can only scan five frames in a strip at a time with the glass (I normally cut my film into strips of six frames, so one frame doesn't get scanned).

One thing I have noticed in previous replies to this question is an awful lot of snobbery: "The Epson is not a 'proper' film scanner" etc. by people who have never used one. The point I'm making is that in this price range none of the scanners is perfect and if I could afford it I'd probably go for a Hasselblad FlexTight. I'd also point out that I haven't tried the Nikons you mention, which may be improvements on the Coolscan IV that I have but it may be worth bearing in mind that all the Nikons are now discontinued.

Hope you find one you like & good luck!
 
I am in the process of considering a scanner purchase and the V700 is top of the list. If you do a search on Flickr for "Epson V700" you can see the results, sometimes you can see the full size scan of 6000+ pixels across.

I'm not an experienced scanner user but the results to me look wonderful. I don't rule out scanning MF in the future, so a 35mm scanner is not for me, but nobody seems to have a bad word to say about about the Coolscans, except the price and the fact they are not produced any more.

I think the V700 represents a good balance of price, quality and the fact it's a current product, but I've not got one yet, so take anything I say with a pinch of salt.
 
Beemermark said:
Does the V700 / 750 scan up to 5x7 negatives? Lawrence states 4x5.
Click to expand...


You can scan 5x7 on it. Either directly on the glass, or wet mounting the 5x7 (you can't wet mount an 8x10), or purchasing a holder from someplace like betterscanning which you can cut for the purpose.

To answer the next logical question: you can scan 8x10 on it, directly on the glass with a piece of ANR glass on top.

Or you can purchase a (different) wet mount kit for $$$ from scan science.
 
I have an Nikon LS-5000 and have owned an Epson 4870 (a little behind the v750), I have used a Nikon LS-8000 and a flextight X5.
I would say that for 35mm the LS-5000 is probably the best way to go if you are interested in bigger enlargements. I concur with Lawrence that the Epsons produce a less pronounced grain, but I don't think you can squeeze much resolution out of a flatbed over about 2000dpi. Some of that softer grain may actually be blur. The tonality I could get from my epson was quite nice though.
The Flextight is a great scanner, very high resolution, and great image quality, and fast. I found loading 35mm rather clumsy and the lack of ICE a problem. In my opinion it is best suited to 120 film (the 4x5 holders have serious flaws too, as it mangled my film!).
The Nikon LS-8000/9000 are very good, but if you are only interested in 35mm, I think you will find the LS-5000 faster to work with. It also has the option of bulk loading attachments, which can really speed things up.
 
Many people will tell you that a flatbed is inadequate but I've used an Epson 4990 to scan 35mm negatives that were printed at 17 x 22 on an Epson 3800 for a show and the quality was very good.

Would a dedicated negative scanner have been better? Perhaps but I don't have one.

The standard negative carries are terrible. I use one from an older Epson model that is easier for me to use and hold the film flatter but still not perfectly flat.

I guess it all depends on how fussy you are and how much you let the quest for the perfect get in the way of the good.
 
I am in the process of considering a scanner purchase and the V700 is top of the list. If you do a search on Flickr for "Epson V700" you can see the results, sometimes you can see the full size scan of 6000+ pixels across.

I'm not an experienced scanner user but the results to me look wonderful. I don't rule out scanning MF in the future, so a 35mm scanner is not for me, but nobody seems to have a bad word to say about about the Coolscans, except the price and the fact they are not produced any more.

I think the V700 represents a good balance of price, quality and the fact it's a current product, but I've not got one yet, so take anything I say with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

6000 pixels across corresponds to about a 2000dpi scan. That is perfect for flickr or a smaller print, but not really for bigger enlargements. You can bring all the grain out by applying a lot of USM, but it never looks as good as scanning with a higher resolution.
The v700 is a good deal, especially for medium and large format. If you are on a budget a Epson 4870 or 4990 can be found lightly used for around or below $200. They are almost as good.
As for the coolscans, the bad news is the software which has not been updated since about 2004. There are alternatives for that though.
 
Dust removal

Dust removal

thanks for the feedback may I ask a follow up question how do you deal with dust from B&W scans can dust spots be reasonably removed either pre or post processing?
 
For dust I spray the flatbed scanner with cleaning fluid first and wipe off with a microfibre cloth. Then I dust my negs with a brush.

Whatever I miss I use the wonderful Photoshop healing brush as my first step before I start messing with layers and curves and levels.
 
davek - just spent the am "spotting" in photoshop - get one of the Wacom tablets - they are excellent. Some models like Bamboo seem to be just as useful but much lower price. I use an Intuos 6x9.
For a reasonable compriosn/review of the Epsons V700 & 750 - this site might be useful to you. He's reviewed both and I note now he'sjust reviewed the V600
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
 
Flatbed scanner gives you about 2000 dpi information - give or take. Coolscan up to 4000. Whether you need that much depends not only on the enlargement but also on the type of the image and film.

I have a Microtek F1 (not too long though) myself and got quite some scans done with Coolscan 5000 or 9000 and there is just no comparison. The more 'film like" appearance is just lack of resolution and scanner noise to my opinion.

I did nice 50 x 70 cm prints from my F1 - but from 4x5 film (cca 6x enlargement). Scan made with Imacon X5 would be better with less noise, but the result I got was considered more than good by the "end customer" (my wife 😛 ) and I also think it is not that shabby. That is second important point - quality of print is subjective.
 
I used to scan negatives on a Coolscan 9000 in college. Provided fantastic 6x6 scans and 35mm scans. I purchased an Epson 4990 during my time at school and have been using it since.

That said, I find the Nikon scanners provide better detail and overall image quality over the 4990. The contrast is better in the shadow areas, and the negatives are much sharper overall.

The Epson has a fixed plane of focus, so if your film has a bit of curl, and you try to scan it, you can have very poor results.

My 2 cents.
 
Another vote for the Epson V700 ... it's easy to use and holds twenty four negatives at a time and produces very good results if you're not obsessed with detail.

I've had mine for a couple of years now and understand it's quirks well ... the film holders are OK if you know how to keep your negatives flat and curl free while scanning. I've never felt the need to get glass inserts or different holders.


vespesk_0-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I meant to add I print 8x10s on Ilford Gallery Silk from 50meg tifs with my Epson R2400 and have no complaints about the results ... but that is subjective depending on the image itself of course.

I haven't attempted to print any larger from 35mm scans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Epson 4490 Upgrade For Scanning Photos.
Replies
0
Views
430
rl1856
R
ColSebastianMoran
Adapt Scanner Lens for Camera-Scanning??
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
x-ray
x-ray
N
An efficient workflow to scan Xpan negatives
Replies
4
Views
2K
newtorf
N
W
JJC Film Scanning Adapter Kit
Replies
5
Views
2K
webouser2
W
D
Scanning 4x5 negatives
2
Replies
21
Views
6K
Joao
Joao
Back
Top Bottom