2016 - Which scanner for mounted 35mm color slide film?

[Asim]

I'm thinking of getting my first scanner. I have only shot 35mm color slide film for the past 15 years and have a bunch of images I'd like to print up to 8X10 or put on websites. Almost all of them have been shot on Provia 100F or Velvia 50.

Any scanner worth investing in?

 

[Swift1]

I'm thinking of getting my first scanner. I have only shot 35mm color slide film for the past 15 years and have a bunch of images I'd like to print up to 8X10 or put on websites. Almost all of them have been shot on Provia 100F or Velvia 50.

Any scanner worth investing in?

How much scanning do you need to do? What is your budget?
An Epson V500/V600 is very affordable and will give results sufficient for 8x10 prints, and you can load 4 slides at a time.

A V750/V850, is more expensive, will give results sufficient for 12x18 prints, and you can load 12 slides at a time.

There are various dedicated 35mm scanners that will give different levels of result (similar or better than the V750), at different prices. Some are available new, and some are only available used.

 

[mfogiel]

I'd go for a flatbed with ICE just to get this scanned quickly at a sufficcient level of quality, and then would select the best 100 images and get them rescanned on a high quality dedicated scanner that will get most of the sharpness and shadow detail out of these. An alternative idea would be to buy such a scanner and sell it back once you're finished with the job. If you have some spare time, it will most likely work out cheaper than paying a lab.

 

[RichardPhoto]

I have an Epson V600 flatbed and easy access to a V700. I've found they work very well for larger formats and I use the V600 for scanning my 4x5 negatives. Personally, I find them quite poor for 35mm work unless the intended output is for small prints, online images, or to make a digital contact sheet. Contrary to what they advertise, the actual resolution of the V700 is very low. It's about 2300 dpi - or about 7 megapixels. V600 is about 1560. (Source: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html)

For my 35mm scanning I use a Nikon Coolscan V. I get excellent result at 4000 dpi, it's quick, and producing a small file size unlike many of the flatbeds or cheaper film scanners. The slide holder/insert is also excellent and, although they need to be feed in individual, it's quite quick and easy to use. Only downside is that it can be expensive and secondhand is always a gamble. I was lucky though and found one for about the same price as a used V700.

 

[Tokoza]

Resolution wise the Epson V500 is not at all great for 35mm film. The Plustek 8100 are better here, but scanning at full resolution is very slow... I would look for other scanning options if the negatives are plentiful (Coolscan V or DSLR and macro lens scanning setup...).

 

[Asim]

thanks for the replies.
i'm surprised that there are recommendations for flatbed scanners for 35mm film. I didn't think that a flatbed scanner could scan slides properly without magnifying dust particles a lot. I also thought they wouldn't be able to handle the color so well.

To answer Swift1 questions...
I only have to scan once in a while... perhaps a few hundred scans. I'm in no hurry to get them all done and could just work on it during those odd rainy days.

I guess my budget is about $800-$1000. But I think prices are half of this for dedicated scanners that are good bang for the buck.

I'm still looking forward to more suggestions.
Thanks for all those that replied.

 

[benmacphoto]

If your budget is $800-$1000 go with a Nikon scanner with the MA-21 slide holder.

 

[Swift1]

thanks for the replies.
i'm surprised that there are recommendations for flatbed scanners for 35mm film. I didn't think that a flatbed scanner could scan slides properly without magnifying dust particles a lot. I also thought they wouldn't be able to handle the color so well.

Dedicated scanners will give a bit better resolution, but a decent flatbed scanner (with transparency unit) will provide results easily sufficient for 8x10 prints. Dust magnification would be the same, regardless of scanner.
As for color, they all have their pluses and minuses when auto exposure is used. Depending on software, you can manually set color parameters and get good color.

I just made two 12x18 prints from 35mm negatives scanned on my V750. One was from Ektar, and the other was from Lomo 400, and both prints turned out fantastic.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

If you can find a Minolta Dimage 5400 or 5400-II in good condition, grab it. I've been using mine since about 2003, and it gives great results -- about as close as you can get to a drum scanner.

 

[splitimageview]

Minolta Scan Dual IV with Vuescan is probably the best bang for the buck. 5400 is even better. The Coolscans are excellent, I've owned all these. Flatbed with a mounted slide is iffy.

 

[bobby_novatron]

My 2 cents: I've owned both a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED, and currently own an Epson v700 flatbed.

The Nikon dedicated scanners do a fantastic job, but I found the software a little counter-intuitive.

The Epson scanner is a good all-around machine. Sure, it ain't no drum scanner, but it's a very competent machine. I use mine all the time for scanning 35mm negatives from my home darkroom. The software is easy to use and the built-in ICE is good for dust removal.

FWIW I scanned a huge number of mounted slides (mostly Kodachrome) using my v700 and things went pretty smoothly. The nice thing about the Epson software is you can keep things as simple or as complex as you want. If you want to dive in and adjust gamma, tweak the curves etc., it's pretty straightforward. Or, if you want to just let the automated Epson software do its thing, you can just load the slides in the dedicated tray and not worry about it.

Here's a sample of one of the slides I scanned. This image has been reduced for web / internet, but it shows the general contrast + image quality that the Epson v700 produces.

 

[philipus]

I'm a firm believer in dedicated film scanners and have both a Coolscan V ED and a 9000. Unfortunately I haven't seen good results of 135 film scanned on Epson flatbeds (MF and larger is a different story). Of course whether one is happy with the results depends on (among other things) the output size/use of the image (and one's preferences/requirements).

Depending on the budget, a better solution might be to digitize with a dslr and a macro lens. Just something to consider.

br
Philip

I'm thinking of getting my first scanner. I have only shot 35mm color slide film for the past 15 years and have a bunch of images I'd like to print up to 8X10 or put on websites. Almost all of them have been shot on Provia 100F or Velvia 50.

Any scanner worth investing in?

 

[mcfingon]

I scan using a Nikon D3300 digital camera with 40mm Micro lens pointed at an old B&W enlarger for image holding and light source. Exposure 1/800th second at f8. Original on Kodachrome 64 shot in 1984. Out of camera jpeg image.

 

[mcfingon]

Just in case you want to see the setup.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fingon/howto/making_digitizer_mark_three/

 

[froyd]

You said you are not in a hurry, but a dedicated slide scanner will make the job a breeze and then a week later, when the project is done, you can sell it for a small loss.

 

[Livesteamer]

I've got a Powerslide 5000. It is a mixed blessing. The unit is based on an old Braun slide projector. Extra slide trays are hard to find. The Cyberview software forgets its settings and deposits files in odd places. My brother bought the scanner and gave it to me with two big boxes of Dads old Kodachromes. It won't reliably load the first slide, tech support says leave that slot empty. It has made a mess of our windows pc files. Tech support says it does not play well with Adobe Elements and that seems to be true as Adobe has now "lost" 22,000+ images I had in it. The old Kodachromes look good but the 56 year old slide mounts are warping and delaminating so they have feed problems. Once you get past all that the output is nice and tech support has been very helpful. It's been a royal pain but worth it to preserve these old family photos. There has got to be a better way though. Joe

 

[ferider]

I have an older Minolta Dimage (Multi Pro) scanner with a slide feeder (50 slides). Works real well, I once scanned a batch of around 1000 slides with it.

I think the newer Dimage scanners can have added slide feeders too. So I suggest to look for one of those (with ICE).

Roland.

 

[Rangefinder 35]

Yes. Minolta Multipro is a superb performer, but when I checked recently, they go for upwards of $2000

 

[ferider]

Yes. Minolta Multipro is a superb performer, but when I checked recently, they go for upwards of $2000

Sorry, had no idea. Should sell mine.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

The old Kodachromes look good but the 56 year old slide mounts are warping and delaminating so they have feed problems. Once you get past all that the output is nice and tech support has been very helpful. It's been a royal pain but worth it to preserve these old family photos. There has got to be a better way though. Joe

I'm not anti digital let's get the clear first. This concerns me, the 'chromes have lasted 56 years with no intervention from you and your trust is that a digital archive will preserve them?
That's just like the data I have on 51/4 floppies, Zip drives, digital tapes in the loft. Sure with some, mighty, effort I could find hardware to read them and transfer to the current digital storage medium, rinse and repeat every what five years for security, with backups of course.
By all means digitally copy to share and post but whatever you do consider re-mounting and preserve the originals in optimum physical conditions DO NOT DUMP THEM, I have seen that far too often.
BTW I am delighted with my V850 for general work, if I wanted to print big I would send out for a drum scan, another skill set entirely.

ASIM QUOTE didn't think that a flatbed scanner could scan slides properly without magnifying dust particles a lot. I also thought they wouldn't be able to handle the color so well.

I don't understand why you think a flat bed would magnify the dust, any scanner will magnify anything on the slide by the same amount, the dust is not preferentially exaggerated, you just see it more clearly. ICE works but at some expense of quality if you are really picky.
Just IMHO.