Another film scanning question

dlofgreen

dlofgreen

Member
Local time
4:43 PM
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
48
I am looking at buying a scanner for my 35mm negs. I only have 35mm so that's all I am looking for. I am looking at these two scanners

http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_Product_Pages/DiMAGE_Scan_Dual_IV

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=53540927

I was wondering if any of you had any experience with either of these? I know I will get a lot of opinions but I would love to hear some hands on with these. I will obviously like to make as big of prints as I can with the scanner as I have a large format printer available to use whenever I want. I am leaning toward the DiMAGE because I have limited desk space and I already have a flatbed that I use often.

So what do you think?
 
this has been a hot topic lately.. I was looking at basically the same items.. every review or comparison I read said that while the flatbed scanners will do a decent job, the dedicated slide/film scanner will be significantly better when dealing with the small 35mm format

I would consider the flatbed setup only if you need it to scan medium format film.. if not, the Dual Scan IV is your best bet

neither of the units you're looking incorporate ICE technology, so that's not a factor.. I decided the Nikon Coolscan V was the way to go since ICE was a priority.. but those go for about $550
 
According to my wife a budget is what's left after I've spent money on new camera gear :D

I used to have the Dual Scan IV and was very happy with it. Once I also started using larger negs than 35mm though it went out of use and I sold it off.
 
TPPhotog said:
According to my wife a budget is what's left after I've spent money on new camera gear :D

I used to have the Dual Scan IV and was very happy with it. Once I also started using larger negs than 35mm though it went out of use and I sold it off.
Click to expand...

...and replaced it with?...

I have a Dual Scan IV too, and am rather pleased with it. I still use my ancient Epson 2450 for my Medium Format negatives; it takes 7+ minutes to scan each frame. So that's why I'm curious to know.
 
I have the Dual IV & love it. All the stuff in my gallery here, and on my film blog was scanned with it. It's the best price/performance for 35mm, but if you want to scan other formats, you should look at the epson.

If/when I start messing with medium format, I'll probably pick up a flatbed for that & keep my Dual IV. Being cheap new, it wouldn't make much sense for me to sell it.

Dave
 
I'm using a Dual III (the previous generation) and I find it to be satisfactory. I average about a minute a frame at medium resolution, so it's reasonably speedy.

Lately, I've been thinking of getting a Canon 9950F so I can scan an entire roll at one go, as well as medium formats. My usage is primarily screen as my prints are made in the darkroom.

Having ICE is of no use to me, as I shoot traditional B&W, unfortunately.
 
Hmm, so ICE doesn't do anything for silver negs? It doesn't really make a difference for me because I shoot traditional B&W too, not unfortunately. I love the wet darkroom, maybe because I spend 10+ hours a day in front of my computer designing multimedia and animation. But for my color stuff a scanner will be nice.

It looks like the DiMAGE is the heavy favorite here. I have to repair my cars breaks first but I think the DiMAGE is what I will get once that is done and paid for.
 
dlofgreen said:
Hmm, so ICE doesn't do anything for silver negs?
Click to expand...

The way I understand it (hardcore technoids, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that ICE depends on the fact (?) that modern color films are transparent to infrared but dust and other assorted junk is not.

They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that the exposed silver portions of B&W film is opaque to infrared, as it is to visible light, so ICE is not an option for it. Likewise, "they" also say that the Kodachrome dyes also are somewhat opaque to infrared, and that's why it will not work with Kodachrome.

Since a good portion of what I've been scanning is either old B&W or Kodachrome, ICE is no big deal to me, rather the lack of it is not. :)

It looks like the DiMAGE is the heavy favorite here. I have to repair my cars breaks first but I think the DiMAGE is what I will get once that is done and paid for.
Click to expand...

It seems to be one thing that's either loved or hated. I've had no problems {knocking on wood} but it seems to be consistently badmouthed here and in other fora. Likewise, I don't see anything wrong with the software, but many do not like it.
 
Last edited:
I had a Dimage SE 5400, which I would only rate as OK, and I never could get it to work right in Mac OS Tiger. Sold it and am in the market. Any of you Dual IV users working in Tiger? If so, what scanning software? TIA...skip

ICE does work on chromogenic B/W, which a great time saver, if you don't process your own film.
 
skipc said:
I had a Dimage SE 5400, which I would only rate as OK, and I never could get it to work right in Mac OS Tiger. Sold it and am in the market. Any of you Dual IV users working in Tiger? If so, what scanning software? TIA...skip

ICE does work on chromogenic B/W, which a great time saver, if you don't process your own film.
Click to expand...

I have the Dual IV and Tiger. There was no software update with the release of Tiger, but none was needed. The bundled software is very good, and I've used it for 95% of my scans to date.

A few months ago I bought SilverFast SE because of the great reviews. I've only used it a handful of times since the interface and software were not that intuitive. I tried it again Monday night with good results.

So short answer to your question. I use the Minolta software and SilverFast SE on Tiger without any issues. They are both fast and stable.

You can see samples in my gallery here, or on my Analog Blog. Todays image of the green vase was a SilverFast scan.

Dave
 
With JoeFriday I think ICE is definitely worth a look. I had a Canon FSU-2720 without, now a Coolscan IV with. No contest. The Coolscan saved enough time the first week to pay for the difference. It is also nice to be able to put in a strip of 6 and batch scan all with no extra attachment. I am surprised how beat-up negs get right from the processing machine! You already know that ice will not work with Kodacromes or silver, but it is wonderful with the all the c-41 process films that I have used, and also with the modern E-6 slide films from Kodak and Fuji. The Nikon V also does 4000 dpi instead of my IV's 2900, and it has GEM (for grain reduction), ROC (for color restoration), and something like the Photoshop CS Lighten/darken command. I am not hung up on the Nikon scanners, but I am hung up on ICE and GEM. Scanning opened a whole new world for me. I would buy my IV all over again. Rockford
 
skipc said:
I had a Dimage SE 5400, which I would only rate as OK, and I never could get it to work right in Mac OS Tiger. Sold it and am in the market. Any of you Dual IV users working in Tiger? If so, what scanning software? TIA...skip

ICE does work on chromogenic B/W, which a great time saver, if you don't process your own film.
Click to expand...

Just curious about the rating of OK. Was that for the most part because you could never get it to work right with Mac OS Tiger? Or was it because the out put was not good? I have the older model and it works well on my system which is not Mac.

Bob
 
I, too, print B&W in the darkroom and am starting to scan color (Epson 4990 since i scan MF). I reallly like ICE and wouldn't buy a scanner that does not have it. I, myself, would rather wait and save more money and then buy the Coolscan V. But I'm lazy and don't want to spot all of those dust spots!

Robert
 
I've had the chance to use a Coolscan V recently, and it's exactly as Rockford says.. the ICE is a 'must have' if you do anything with c-41 negs.. I have a bunch of Scala slides that it won't help with, and the cleanup time time difference for a b/w neg or slide versus c-41 is about a half hour each.. you have no idea how much crud gets on slides, or how easily ICE will fix scratches in negs until you scan one at 4000 dpi
 
Dave thanks a million for taking the time to reply. Just ordered the IV and downloaded Silverfast which I have used before...skip
 
Nikon Bob said:
Just curious about the rating of OK. Was that for the most part because you could never get it to work right with Mac OS Tiger? Or was it because the out put was not good? I have the older model and it works well on my system which is not Mac.

Bob
Click to expand...

Sorry to overlook your question. It was stable in Panther, crashed constantly in Tiger on a latest G5 DP with 4G RAM. There are people who say they are getting by just fine in Tiger. I could never achive a full frame scan that I felt worthy of the cost. I got much better scans from a CoolScan IV. Could be the Mac driver isn't on par with PC, or that I am the idiot :) or mine was a lemon. The neg carrier could not be inserted without a dry eject from the software. 5400 scan attached.
 
I have the Minolta Scan Dual IV and like it a lot. Mine is broken (won't turn on reliably and now the film holder won't go into the scanner). So it is going back to Minolta since it is under warranty. I like the scanner a lot and will continue to use it when Minolta fix it.

 
dlofgreen said:
It looks like the DiMAGE is the heavy favorite here. I have to repair my cars breaks first but I think the DiMAGE is what I will get once that is done and paid for.
Click to expand...


Huh? I wouldn't say that.

Nikon makes exceptional scanners and my LS 8000 has performed flawlessly. Perhaps if you posted your budget you would get more helpful responses. The only thing I can tell you *for certain* at this point is that a dedicated 35mm film scanner will blow the doors off any flatbed you can name until you reach the lofty heights of, say, the Hell-Heidelberg line at about US$15K and up.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom