Cheapest scanner worth bothering with for slides?

jsrockit

jsrockit

Moderator
Staff member
Local time
9:08 AM
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
22,662
I have not been satisfied with any scans I get from any of the labs I've used...whether pro or the drug store. They are always too mushy...since I am used to modern digital cameras and before that, cibachrome prints. I have a hundred or so slides that I want to have scanned... what would be the cheapest option I could buy for my home? Would it be worth it (over store scans)?
 
My Epson V500 does a good job scanning my chromes....it is a flat bed with all the design issues that implies but the quality of the scans is good. And, I use the Epson software.
 
JSU said:
It sounds like you desire results from a very high end drum scanner for which the word cheap has never been applicable. And for only a hundred or so files I can't imagine getting a reasonable return on investment, particularly when you are desiring the cheapest option.
Click to expand...

I said cheapest worth bothering with, not just cheapest. I just threw this out there in case there was something I was missing. Relax.
 
I scan my 35mm slides with an Epson V series, which are mushy (better in 120) but adequate for proofing and web. The majority are 'average' shots anyway, that are simply archived. The few good ones get sent out for a drum scan.
 
I would go with Plustek. My 7300 produces scans so large at 3600 dpi that I can see the grain. Admittedly, this is 400 ISO black & white, but the resolution is more than enough for my needs. Just throwing it out there.
 
I'm in the same situation - a few slides that I would like to scan - and I'm

planning to try copying them with a DSLR.

I'm pretty sure that's been done before, but I can't recall seeing any posts.

Rick
 
Hi John,

I bought the Plustek 7600i (previous discussion) right before Christmas when B&H had a special. It's a slide by slide scanning process, i.e., slow. However, for a couple of hundred bucks, it's fairly reasonable, $ vs. quality. Other than resolution, the key is to have a IT8 target for your type of positives in order to get the right color. I got them from Wolf Faust. It's good enough for my taste but keep in mind that, unlike yourself, color is not my specialty. If you want to play with the 7600i for a slide or two, let me know.

John
 
Thanks guys... the more I think about it the more I think the "Print Space" option might be best... however, if I got a Plustek, I'd be able to use it for old negs too. Honestly though, I know I'm going to hate scanning. I wish I had access to a good color darkroom for cibachromes.

Thanks for the offer John, I'll keep it in mind.
 
newspaperguy said:
I'm in the same situation - a few slides that I would like to scan - and I'm

planning to try copying them with a DSLR.

I'm pretty sure that's been done before, but I can't recall seeing any posts.

Rick
Click to expand...

Check post #13 in this old thread, Rick: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=87939

I've been toying with the idea of this kind of rig ever since I saw it, but I don't have a suitable camera.

jsrockit - Why not experiment with a DSLR first? Throw a slide on a lightbox (or tape it to a north-facing window) and see what you can get.
 
batterytypehah! said:
jsrockit - Why not experiment with a DSLR first? Throw a slide on a lightbox (or tape it to a north-facing window) and see what you can get.
Click to expand...

You know, I never thought of copying with a DSLR... that could work using one of these methods found on the internut....

(1) Using a slide viewer (those with the fluorescent backlight) and a digital camera, you can either zoom in or use the macro function to take a picture of the back lit slide. Sometimes the peripheral light present around the slide itself needs to be blocked/blacked out, for which you can use some cardstock/paper/etc. such that only the slides image has any visible light behind it. This process typically requires a tripod to make a sharp image.

(2) Use a slide/negative copy stand that allows you to use your own digital still or video camera if it can focus to within an inch of the lens to copy slides, negatives and small prints. Capture is quick with a click of the camera's shutter.

However, Print Space sounds like it might be the best option.
 
I "scan" with my Nikon D300 and a macro lens, and the results are better than any flatbed scanner I've used. Any of the nikon 55mm-60mm micros do a great (and equal) job at between f/5.6 and f/8 (I have three from different eras). I set up a little station using the column and base from a Durst enlarger, a cheap LED movie light as a source, and an omega 35mm carrier to hold the negs. One of the reasons I'm hyped about the new D800e is for improving my "scans".

Aside from quality, the other nice thing about this method is that instead of 5 minutes per scan it takes 1/250 sec.

All of the recent B&W stuff on my Flickr site is done this way, and there are full-resolution views there to see, as well--you could even download one and print it to see what you get. The main disadvantage I'm having is that the resolution of my camera is close to the grain size of the Tri-X I'm scanning, so the grain you see isn't quite real grain---it's more like noise generated by the interference, that's what searching the tubes of the net tells me, anyway.

The major tricks I've used are to shoot the film concave side up, and flip in photoshop, and to align by focusing on a mirror sitting flat on the light or carrier, and wiggling the camera around until the lens' reflection is perfectly centered (I use a tripod head on the Durst stand, for the movements). At that point, alignment is perfect, too. Also, once you get everything set up and scaled right, the camera's AF does a great job of focusing, if you use the 60mm/AF lens.

I messed around with lenses, and the micros were the best. Normal lenses were decidedly bad, and enlarging lenses were not that great, either, at that ratio, so there's a $$$ investment. I do a lot of copy work so I'm up to my ears in micros. The 55mm/3.5 micro-Nikkor of any vintage is the cheapest nikon lens you can buy used, though--$50-80 should do it.
 
Hmmm, wonder if the 60mm macro for the Fuji X-Pro1 will do the job... does 1:2 like the Nikon 55mm.
 
jsrockit said:
Thanks guys... the more I think about it the more I think the "Print Space" option might be best... however, if I got a Plustek, I'd be able to use it for old negs too. Honestly though, I know I'm going to hate scanning. I wish I had access to a good color darkroom for cibachromes.

Thanks for the offer John, I'll keep it in mind.
Click to expand...

Nobody like scanning..........whats to like? If you want digi images its D........ something or other or scan.
 
ray*j*gun said:
Nobody like scanning..........whats to like? If you want digi images its D........ something or other or scan.
Click to expand...

Well, I actually like post processing my digital files...

I guess what I meant was that this is old work and not my current workflow. It's not something I want to do, but I feel it may be important to do... just to have my old work in a digital form. A friend of mine says he likes scanning, but I'm not going to ask him to do so many.

I would even pay someone here to do it for me if I felt they could do a great job with it.
 
The 60mm micro-Nikkor goes to 1:1, which isn't even needed. You could probably do fine with the 55. The disadvantage of the AF-D Nikkors is that the focus throw is so short that critical manual focus is difficult. I don't know how the newest one is, though. The old manual lenses are more sensitive. (I'm assuming your camera won't auto-focus a Nikon lens?)

By the way, Bjorn Rorslett goes into raptures about the earliest micro-Nikkor at close range. My tests in this particular job don't confirm that--as I said, near f/5.6-8, they're all equal.
 
A Nikon D800 with an Ohnar slide duplicator attachment should be better than a Nikon or Minolta scanner. You are looking at approx $3100

http://www.kauserinternational.com/Photography/Ohnar/Copier/ohnar copier.htm#

http://www.kauserinternational.com/Photography/Ohnar/Copier/Ohnar Digital_Zoom.htm

Well you did say "worth bothering about" :D

oooops, someone already suggested this but since you have digital cameras all you need is the duplicator with the correct mount for your camera. They also make one that fits the filter thread of a lens on your camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom