davidswiss
Established
Hello all. I'm new to scanning and have an old Canon mp540 printer which doubles as a scanner but only of printed photographs. It's connected to my windows 10 pc.
The scans of these are not that great and I read in the posts here that you all seem to scan the negatives and then use software to get the image.
I can find plenty of scanning kit on the web but have no idea what to look for so would appreciate some guidance on the cheaper options.
I'd also be interested in any way to improve what I am getting from the mp540.
As a ps I'm in the UK and have a leica IIIc with a Summar 50mm.
Thanks in advance.
The scans of these are not that great and I read in the posts here that you all seem to scan the negatives and then use software to get the image.
I can find plenty of scanning kit on the web but have no idea what to look for so would appreciate some guidance on the cheaper options.
I'd also be interested in any way to improve what I am getting from the mp540.
As a ps I'm in the UK and have a leica IIIc with a Summar 50mm.
Thanks in advance.
Swift1
Veteran
Scanning is one of the more hotly debated topics, and opinions on what is good can vary wildly.
Generally, you will get better results scanning the negative than scanning prints, unless you want the authentic look of a darkroom print to show.
The three most typical scanning setups people generally use are,
Flatbed scanners with transparency unit. Typically an Epson V500 or similar/better. Usually fairly inexpensive, built to scan 35mm and 120 negatives, decent resolution usually acceptable to make prints up to 8x12.
Can be found for as low as $100.
Dedicated film scanners. Scanners available new are the Plustek, Primefilm, Braun, etc. Scanners available 2nd hand include Nikon Coolscan, Minolta ScanDual, some older Canon units. Usually much better resolution than flatbed scanners. Drivers and software can be an issue with the older units.
Can get expensive especially for scanners that can scan 120.
Usually around $200-$300 for the least expensive units.
A lot of people are now scanning film using digital cameras and macro lenses. This can be inexpensive if you already have the gear, and is capable of very high resolution. There are a bunch of threads on this method.
Generally, you will get better results scanning the negative than scanning prints, unless you want the authentic look of a darkroom print to show.
The three most typical scanning setups people generally use are,
Flatbed scanners with transparency unit. Typically an Epson V500 or similar/better. Usually fairly inexpensive, built to scan 35mm and 120 negatives, decent resolution usually acceptable to make prints up to 8x12.
Can be found for as low as $100.
Dedicated film scanners. Scanners available new are the Plustek, Primefilm, Braun, etc. Scanners available 2nd hand include Nikon Coolscan, Minolta ScanDual, some older Canon units. Usually much better resolution than flatbed scanners. Drivers and software can be an issue with the older units.
Can get expensive especially for scanners that can scan 120.
Usually around $200-$300 for the least expensive units.
A lot of people are now scanning film using digital cameras and macro lenses. This can be inexpensive if you already have the gear, and is capable of very high resolution. There are a bunch of threads on this method.
Bill Clark
Veteran
To my way of thinking, if I want digital files I capture using a digital camera. If I use film, I don’t scan. I only use black and white film anymore and I do have an analog darkroom!
If I wanted to have digital files made from negatives, I would do this:
http://www.precision-camera.com/photo-lab/archiving/film-scans/
Since you’re in the UK there should be a business where you could have this done.
The folks I shared the link with you advertise on this forum.
If I wanted to have digital files made from negatives, I would do this:
http://www.precision-camera.com/photo-lab/archiving/film-scans/
Since you’re in the UK there should be a business where you could have this done.
The folks I shared the link with you advertise on this forum.
Dwig
Well-known
@OP:
Caution should be exercised when considering a used scanner, particularly a dedicated film scanner. Many of these use interfaces (e.g. SCSI, FireWire, ...) that may not be present on modern computers. Also, many require drivers that will not work with current OSs. Make sure that interface is one your computer has and that drivers are available for your OS.
I would suggest that you give some careful thought as to exactly what you will be doing with the scans. Scanning for just web display is not very challenging and many modestly priced scanners will do a perfectly good job. Scanning to produce files for printing large prints is more challenging and requires a scanner that can produce rather high resolution scans.
willie_901
Veteran
Good advice above.
Casual scanning is easy. It takes more time than money. There are web sites that specialize in reviewing negative/transparency scanning hardware and software.
Scanning to achieve the best possible digital rendering is a lot of work. A reasonably current computer system with a good display is required. Dedicated scanner hardware and third-party software must be acquired. For me, producing an excellent digital image is similar to making an excellent analog print. There is a learning curve for both the scanning process and post-scanning image rendering. It always takes care and time.
Sending negatives and, or transparencies to a professional lab is the best and most expensive solution. If it is practical to select a relatively low percentage of keepers, outsourcing the work may even be affordable.
Casual scanning is easy. It takes more time than money. There are web sites that specialize in reviewing negative/transparency scanning hardware and software.
Scanning to achieve the best possible digital rendering is a lot of work. A reasonably current computer system with a good display is required. Dedicated scanner hardware and third-party software must be acquired. For me, producing an excellent digital image is similar to making an excellent analog print. There is a learning curve for both the scanning process and post-scanning image rendering. It always takes care and time.
Sending negatives and, or transparencies to a professional lab is the best and most expensive solution. If it is practical to select a relatively low percentage of keepers, outsourcing the work may even be affordable.
swanseadave
Member
I use a Scan Dual III on which I`ve digitised all my old negs and slides.yes it took months to do.I originally used the scan dual software which was a bit clunky and slow.
I`ve now bought Vuescan and wholeheartedly recommend it.It can be made as fast as you like but I use it @ 2820Mb.It allows for wb and curves adjustment saving valuable time finishing off in CS4ext.
I`ve now bought Vuescan and wholeheartedly recommend it.It can be made as fast as you like but I use it @ 2820Mb.It allows for wb and curves adjustment saving valuable time finishing off in CS4ext.
davidswiss
Established
Thanks to all for the pointers. very useful.
muser53
MUSER53
Whatever method/hardware you end up with here are a few tips.
Always scan at the maximum resolution you can.
Be scrupulous about cleaning dust off your negatives.
Use app like Photoshop,LR etc to adjust your scans. They
typically do a much better job than the scanners software can.
Always scan at the maximum resolution you can.
Be scrupulous about cleaning dust off your negatives.
Use app like Photoshop,LR etc to adjust your scans. They
typically do a much better job than the scanners software can.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Agree! Disk space is cheap. I used to scan a roll at low/medium resolution and then go back and re-scan those I wanted to print, but figured it was easier and quicker to just run everything through at max res.
This is the one area I still have problems with. I carefully dust off the negatives and the carrier with canned air each time, but usually each scan still has a few spots and "ickies" on them, and I have to spend at least a few minutes with the clone/healing brush.
I really don't see why the scanner software tries to be an all-things-to-all-people type of thing! I normally use Gimp to post process, even though I've been playing around with Darktable.
MartinN
Member
I would personally consider the Plustek OpticFilm 8100 or Plustek OpticFilm 135.
Here you can read about scanners:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
In my recommendation I have considered that you probably scan 35mm film only. Infrared cleaning can be important which the OF 135 lacks. Scanning can also be done whit a flatbed scanner but with worse quality and sometimes greater speed due to the bigger scanning area. Current scanners should work on Windows10.
Here you can read about scanners:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
In my recommendation I have considered that you probably scan 35mm film only. Infrared cleaning can be important which the OF 135 lacks. Scanning can also be done whit a flatbed scanner but with worse quality and sometimes greater speed due to the bigger scanning area. Current scanners should work on Windows10.
MartinN
Member
Infrared cleaning is VERY important for best quality. There is ICE and iSRD. I am used to Silverfast where it is called iSRD and in the Studio version there is detection sensivity options. These are extremely important. Too light sensitivity and there will be a lot of spots. On the other hand too heavy detection can destroy the image. Silverfast even has the new SRDx software algorithm for black and white negatives and Kodachrome , which can't use Infrared cleaning.