itf
itchy trigger finger
I hope someone can help! I've been trawling through everything on here about scanners, but I'm starting to go in circles. I need to be able to scan 35mm and 6x6, but I don't want to drop too much cash. I've got a lot of film so ease and speed would be good, but a balance of low cost and high quality are much more important.
I'd rather not buy two scanners, but it seems like that might be the best option. If I was to do this I would probably get the Plustek 7200 for 35mm and one of the cheaper epson flatbeds for MF.
However, how noticable is the difference between a 35mm flatbed scan and a dedicated film scanner scan? Also, there seems to be differing opinions on flatbeds for MF, some say they are more than adequate, others believe they are not. Is there any sort of consensus.
Finally, can anyone recommend any scanners. I've been looking at the cheaper Epson flatbeds (3170, 3490, 3590, 4490), and the Plustek 7200. I know the 4490 will take both formats, but what about the 3170? Also, I'm pretty sure the other two are 35mm only but would custom draws change that? The only scanning I've done previously was with my university's flatbeds that had draws below the glass, is that how they all are?
Any help would be wonderful!
I'd rather not buy two scanners, but it seems like that might be the best option. If I was to do this I would probably get the Plustek 7200 for 35mm and one of the cheaper epson flatbeds for MF.
However, how noticable is the difference between a 35mm flatbed scan and a dedicated film scanner scan? Also, there seems to be differing opinions on flatbeds for MF, some say they are more than adequate, others believe they are not. Is there any sort of consensus.
Finally, can anyone recommend any scanners. I've been looking at the cheaper Epson flatbeds (3170, 3490, 3590, 4490), and the Plustek 7200. I know the 4490 will take both formats, but what about the 3170? Also, I'm pretty sure the other two are 35mm only but would custom draws change that? The only scanning I've done previously was with my university's flatbeds that had draws below the glass, is that how they all are?
Any help would be wonderful!
Xmas
Veteran
There is a range of gains and more $ if you consider the other Epson flat beds. You need a resonable PC e.g. as the 4990 will max out my laptop good, I have to juggle options even for 6x6, else the laptop says no, and then meditates even when it says yes.
The scans seem ok.
Noel
The scans seem ok.
Noel
FrankS
Registered User
I have a Canon 8400F flatbed scanner with a light source in the lid ofr scanning MF and 135 negs. The results are certainly good enough for posting to the web. It comes with Photoshop Elements II software. For printing, I still do it the old fashioned way.
valdas
Veteran
I have Epson 4490. I purchased when I fell in love with Rolleiflex and needed a scaner for medium format. I also have Coolscan V for 35mm. While I can use dedicated film scaner for scaning and printing, flatbet is only for web and preview. It's good (4490), but if you start comparing it to dedicated film scanner (or drum), it's different league... It would be big compromise printing MF from flatbed scaner scans.
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
itf said:
itf,
if you've been already reading all related posts than this might be redundant: I was quite happy with the quality of the 3170 on 135 up to an 5x enlargement.
Scanning MF on this scanner: the default film holder will allow to scan only one (!) frame at a time (up to 6x9 however). You will need to move the film after each frame.. To get around this I bought a holder from Doug - but this means additional expenses.
I also had problems scanning MF because the light source (2 long fixed lights) caused an uneven lighting on the negative, with two brighter 'bars'. So I would not recommend this scanner, sorry. Instead I would search for one where the light source moves (I think the 4490 does that, don't know about the others you mentioned).
FPjohn
Well-known
Both 3170
Both 3170
Hello:
The 3170 does both 35mm and 120. 120 negatives are credible, the 35mm acceptable IMHO.
yours
Frank
Both 3170
Hello:
The 3170 does both 35mm and 120. 120 negatives are credible, the 35mm acceptable IMHO.
yours
Frank
amateriat
We're all light!
This can be a bit tricky, since you want relative ease of use combined with a certain degree of quality results, but not at too high a price.
One question: what will you be doing with the final scans? Web? Printing? Both? You're going to print from the files, how large will you want to go?
If you're just scanning for the Web, you needn't go crazy in terms of specs or price: a few of the Epson models below the 4990 can do the job. Then again, the 4990, besides better resolution specs, also has Digital ICE, which takes a lot of the tedium out of dust/scatch removal (for C41 and E6 film types primarily; conventional b/w and most Kodachrome films don't mix well with ICE).
If you're going to be printing quality 8x10s and larger, you might best be served by shelling out for a better-quality flatbed like Epson's 700 series, which can supposedly produce credible 35mm scans as well as larger formats up tp 8x10". I've heard good things about the 700 series from a number of sources, plus a brickbat or two from others. HP is supposed to have a good flatbed in this quality range now, but I'm not sure of it's cost (the Epsons are around $650-800, depending on model and software bundle).
You could also hunt around for a used, dedicated 120 film scanner, which will also scan 35mm. But, as these are rather in-demand, prices might not be as low as you'd like.
- Barrett
One question: what will you be doing with the final scans? Web? Printing? Both? You're going to print from the files, how large will you want to go?
If you're just scanning for the Web, you needn't go crazy in terms of specs or price: a few of the Epson models below the 4990 can do the job. Then again, the 4990, besides better resolution specs, also has Digital ICE, which takes a lot of the tedium out of dust/scatch removal (for C41 and E6 film types primarily; conventional b/w and most Kodachrome films don't mix well with ICE).
If you're going to be printing quality 8x10s and larger, you might best be served by shelling out for a better-quality flatbed like Epson's 700 series, which can supposedly produce credible 35mm scans as well as larger formats up tp 8x10". I've heard good things about the 700 series from a number of sources, plus a brickbat or two from others. HP is supposed to have a good flatbed in this quality range now, but I'm not sure of it's cost (the Epsons are around $650-800, depending on model and software bundle).
You could also hunt around for a used, dedicated 120 film scanner, which will also scan 35mm. But, as these are rather in-demand, prices might not be as low as you'd like.
- Barrett
Last edited:
itf
itchy trigger finger
Thanks for all the responses, I should have mentioned what the input and output is going to be. The quality of the files for 120 isn't overly important, its for negatives taken on a Holga (usually bw process bw)! The negatives tend to be soft enough already, so I'm sure a little more softness will not be a problem, though I'm still thinking of printing from them. The 135 I'd like to be much better quality, I'd like to be able to print quite large from the files, particularly for colour (I can print the bw in a darkroom). I think I'll probably go for a dedicated film scanner for the 135, I've been reading up on the Plustek but I've got to look into it more. Are there any other dedicated film scanners that I should consider? Maybe something decent that can be picked up for a reasonable price second hand?
thanks!
thanks!
Tim Gray
Well-known
From my research into 35mm scanners (and film scanners in general), I'd go with the Nikon Coolscan V or 5000, depending on if you want the roll/slide feeder for the 5000. I'm probably going to go this route at some point, but not now.
In the meantime, for a 'toy' scanner for 'toy' camera MF and web postings of 35mm and MF, I'm probably going to end up with the Epson 4490. Seems to have most of the features I want for a decent price.
In the meantime, for a 'toy' scanner for 'toy' camera MF and web postings of 35mm and MF, I'm probably going to end up with the Epson 4490. Seems to have most of the features I want for a decent price.
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
Full ack with Tim! The 4490 seems good value for money for MF. For 135 let's not forget the two 5400 Minoltas which have a strong fan base, too (although I went for the Coolscan V and plan to switch to the 5000 soon).